Definitive Report - Report No 2, 1952

Case No 33 (United States of America) - Complaint date: 01-JUL-51 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  81. 81 The complaint submitted by the World Federation of Trade Unions makes the following allegations:
      • (a) Severe restrictions of the right to strike have occurred in recent weeks, particularly in the railroad industry. When a strike threatened in August 1950 the Government of the United States seized the railroads and nominally turned operations over to the United States Army. Actually private management retained absolute control. A further, unofficial strike having taken place in January and February 1951, Mr. Charles E. Wilson, Director of Defense Mobilisation, declared in a radio broadcast that the strike is not a legitimate means to be employed by railroad workers. In February the Army declared that any worker who did not return to work by 10 February and who could not prove himself incapacitated would be dismissed with loss of all seniority rights. The Wall Street Journal of 9 February 1951 stated in a headline : " Army Tells Railroad Strikers To Go Back To Work Or Be Fired ".
      • (b) In certain industries blacklists have been instituted under the " national security " regulations. The Coast Guard has been given power to presume the guilt of maritime workers and to discharge them without notice, cause or right of appeal. The West Coast Sailor, official organ of a union affiliated to the A.F.L, wrote, concerning earlier but similar regulations, that a man with a reputation for being a union militant could be blackballed off his ship because his " habits of life " showed him to be a " trouble-maker " in the eyes of the Coast Guard and that the so-called right of appeal was illusory. The Shipping Register, an employer organ, wrote, on publication of the Coast Guard regulations : " It looks at last like a termination of strikes ".
      • (c) The Taft-Hartley Act continues in effect. The law was described by the President of the C.I.O as a " first step towards fascism ", and in October 1950, by the annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, as a law which deprives American labour of " its fundamental liberty of organisation ".
      • (d) Political intervention in trade union proceedings under cover of this repressive measure has become marked. Although employers are debarred from intervening in representation elections in their plant, Government spokesmen have intervened. In May 1950 the Secretary of Labor urged the workers of the General Electric Corporation plant at Lynn, Massachusetts to support one of two contending unions in this plant. Due to the threat implicit in this governmental intervention the union supported by the Government won the election.
      • (e) The Immigration Statutes and the McCarran Act are discriminatorily applied against foreign-born officials of trade unions.
      • (f) The right of members of trade unions in Canada and the United States which belong to the same federation to cross the border when they wish for purposes of consultation on trade union negotiations, strikes, and official trade union business is impeded.
      • (g) Anti-trust proceedings are used against unions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, originally enacted to dissolve monopolies and trusts.
      • (h) Contempt of court proceedings are used in strike situations to destroy union financial resources.
  82. Analysis of the Reply
  82. 82 In its reply the Government of the United States declares that it is seriously concerned with the preservation of trade union rights and freedom of association and recalls that it took a leading role in urging the establishment of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. It declares itself ready to co-operate with the latter in the investigation of any charges against the United States which are not purely political in character, and which, in accordance with the established procedure and in the light of the evidence presented, are found to justify fact-finding or conciliation. In the present case, however, the Government considers that the charges made are purely political, are not properly presented, consist largely of vague affirmations unsupported by facts, and do not, in effect, constitute a charge of infringement of trade union rights; it therefore considers that they should be dismissed by the Governing Body.
  83. 83 The Government of the United States then puts forward two general observations:
      • (a) Firstly, certain charges (those indicated under numbers (e), (e), (f ), (g) and (h) of the analysis) are mere general statements entirely unsupported by any reference to facts which might justify them. This being so, it is considered that they merit neither reply from the Government of the United States nor consideration by the Governing Body. The Government indicates that it will, in principle, comment only on allegations which are supported by factual background.
      • (b) Secondly, it points out that certain allegations are extended by implication far beyond the facts by which they are supported. The examples stated in this connection will be taken up in the analysis of the Government's observations on the individual charges made by the World Federation of Trade Unions.
  84. Allegation concerning Restrictions of the Right to Strike
  84. 84 Though the phrasing of this allegation, through the use of the word " particularly " implies that the " severe restrictions of the right to strike in recent weeks " have occurred in other industries, the facts cited in support of the allegation concern labour disputes in the railroad industry alone and the observations of the Government thus bear only on that point.
  85. 85 By virtue of an Act of Congress of 1916, the President is authorised to ensure the continuous operation of the railroads in the event of war, threatened war, or national emergency. In such times it is the responsibility of any Government to act in keeping with the welfare and security of the entire nation. The aggression in Korea has created an emergency situation. The safety of the United Nations forces in Korea depends upon adequate and timely supplies and munitions. The railroads of this country are playing an important part in these logistics. When the continued operation of the railroads was threatened by a nation-wide railroad strike, the President, after all other means of settlement had been exhausted, pursuant to the law, acted in accordance with his powers and with his responsibilities in placing the railroads under the control of the Army. In less critical times labour-management disputes in the railroad industry have not caused the Government to take measures of control (for example, the strike on the Missouri Pacific line in September and October 1949).
  86. 86 After the Army took control, mediation proceedings between the unions and management having broken down in December 1950, a series of wildcat strikes having taken place and these events coinciding with the aggressive intervention of the Chinese Communists in Korea, Mr. Wilson made his appeal to the employees. The sentence quoted from his address gives a false impression because it has been edited. It is asserted that he stated that the strike is not a means that railway workers may legitimately employ, whereas, in fact, he declared that a strike against the whole nation, especially in a time of great peril, is not a legitimate means. This statement is not a general denial of the legality of the basic right to strike. Manifest proof of the fact that the right to strike has not been restricted in the United States is to be found in the reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on work stoppages resulting from labour disputes, which show that during the first eight months of 1951 there occurred 3,075 new work stoppages involving 1,550,000 workers.
  87. 87 The plaintiff does not cite the headline from the Wall Street Journal of 9 February 1951 in its entirety. It did, in fact, state : " Army Tells Railroad Workers To Go Back To Work Or Be Fired ", but it added, " Orders Pay Increase ". This is clear proof of the falsity of the charge that actually " private management retained absolute control " of the railroads.
  88. 88 A final settlement was reached on 2 March 1951, management and unions having agreed on certain wage increases.
  89. 89 The Government attaches as an annex to its comments on this allegation the text of the Senate report on the investigation of the railway labour dispute by the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The majority report of this Committee states that " the President unquestionably has the power, under the Constitution and under existing laws, to take necessary steps including, if appropriate, seizure and operation of facilities involved in such a dispute, pending the settlement of the dispute between the parties involved. The President has not only the power but the duty and responsibility, under the conditions described above, to take the required measures ". Noting that, in its judgment, " it is unfortunate that in connection with the seizure and operation of the railroads the Department of the Army did not consult with or seek the services of any representative of organized labor ", the Committee none the less points out that " Government seizure and operation of the railroads in this case followed a pattern laid down by past Government seizures ". It concludes : " In any event, the instant dispute certainly indicates and under lines the need for thorough and careful study of the whole question of Government seizure and of the means by which Government seizure, when it occurs, may preserve the quality of bargaining power of the disputing parties, and thus promote, rather than impede, sound and democratic labor-management relations ".
• Allegation concerning the Institution of Blacklists under National Security Regulations
  90. 90 Though this allegation speaks of the institution of blacklists in " certain industries " the facts adduced concern only the maritime industry, and the comments of the Government thus refer only to this industry.
  91. 91 The United States has instituted measures to protect the merchant marine and port facilities from sabotage. A security plan was originally adopted in July 1950 by tripartite agreement. Subsequently an Act of Congress gave the President the power to take such measures as seemed necessary to him to ensure the security of the merchant marine and waterfront facilities when he found that it was endangered for various reasons, and particularly by subversive activities. In October 1950, the President of the United States, finding that such danger did exist, prescribed regulations which follow the general outline of the voluntary agreement and are intended to supplement and not to supplant it.
  92. 92 These regulations provide, in particular, that no person may be employed upon the category of United States vessels designated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard nor may any person have access to any such vessel or to any waterfront facility designated by the Commandant unless he has been issued the proper credentials by the Commandant, who must first be satisfied that he is a person whose character and habits are such that his presence is not inimical to the security of the United States.
  93. 93 The regulations issued by the Commandant clearly and specifically set forth the bases upon which the Commandant will reject an application for such credentials. It will be denied to any person who:
• has committed acts of treason or sedition or has engaged in acts of espionage or sabotage ; has actively conducted or aided the commission of such acts by others or has knowingly associated with persons committing such acts;
• is employed by or subject to the influence of a foreign Government under circumstances which may jeopardise the security interests of the United States ;
• has actively advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States by the use of force ;
• has intentionally disclosed military information classified confidential or higher without authority and with reasonable knowledge or belief that it may be transmitted to a foreign Government, or has intentionally disclosed such information to persons not authorised to receive it ;
• is or recently has been a member of, or affiliated to, or sympathetically associated with any foreign or domestic organisation which is or which has been designated by the Attorney General as (i) being totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive; (ii) having adopted a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States ; or (iii) seeking to alter the form of the Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
  94. 94 However, this latter category of causes does not constitute an absolute and final impediment to the issuance of the credentials, and the person concerned may be granted them if it is demonstrated, by more than a mere denial, that the security interests of the United States will not thereby be jeopardised.
  95. 95 When a person wishes to gain access to waterfront facilities, credentials may also be refused him if he is otherwise not a suitable and safe person to have such access for certain other reasons (insanity without evidence of a cure, conviction for arson, unlawful trafficking in drugs, espionage, sabotage or treason ; drunkenness on the job or addiction to the use of drugs without evidence of rehabilitation).
  96. 96 The Commandant's refusal is made only " if, on all the evidence and information available, reasonable grounds exist ". There is no presumption of guilt.
  97. 97 When an application is rejected the person concerned has a right of appeal to the Local Appeal Board which makes recommendations to the Commandant, and if the decision of the Commandant is still adverse, to the National Board.
  98. 98 The composition of these two boards is tripartite (one member representing the Coast Guard in the public interest, one representing management and one representing labour). The procedure established further provides that the appellant, who must be provided with a written statement giving the basis for the denial of his application, has the right to be heard and may appear personally and be represented by counsel or any person of his choosing. He has, within certain limits, a right of challenge against the members of the board which will hear his case. The hearing may be public or closed and a verbatim record is made of it. The recommendation of the board, made by a majority vote, together with all the evidence in the entire record, is sent to the Commandant, who may approve or reject it or remand the case for further proceedings.
  99. 99 The appellant is notified in writing of the decision of the Commandant and, should the decision be adverse to him, is informed of his right further to appeal.
  100. 100 The United States considers that these regulations do not justify the accusation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions. The fear expressed by the West Coast Sailor has not been borne out and the World Federation of Trade Unions does not cite any instance to support the charge that the regulations have been used as blacklists. As to the hope of the owners, supposedly expressed in the Shipping Register that " it looks at last like a termination of strikes "-a quotation whose accuracy it has been impossible to check and which may well have been distorted like that of Mr. Wilson-it has not been fulfilled. The regulations did not prevent the shipping strike in June of 1951 nor have they prevented unions from exercising this pressure to settle local grievances.
• Allegation concerning the Taft-Hartley Act
  101. 101 The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) does, in fact, remain in force, but since no concrete grievance is presented, the allegation is too general to permit of a specific reply. Nothing in this Act a copy of which the Government has joined to its reply-is contrary to the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, nor of the Recommendations on collective bargaining and on voluntary conciliation and arbitration. Furthermore, the very fact that American trade unionists freely criticise the Act emphasises the baselessness of the W.F.T.U propaganda.
• Allegation concerning Political Intervention in Trade Union Proceedings
  102. 102 Although this allegation states that " Government spokesmen " intervened in representation elections, the facts adduced concern the intervention of " a Government spokesman " and the comments of the Government thus refer to this single fact.
  103. 103 It is true that the Secretary of Labor spoke at a rally of the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, C.I.O, in Lynn, Massachusetts, and that he urged the workers to support this union in the forthcoming election.
  104. 104 The conclusions drawn by the W.F.T.U from the Secretary's speech are untrue. There was no threat involved. The Secretary of Labor, who has purely ministerial duties in connection with the registration of union financial statements and non-communist affidavits and the maintenance of a file on collective bargaining agreements, has nothing to do with the substantive administration of the Labor Management Relations Act pursuant to which the elections were being held. That responsibility is held by the National Labor Relations Board, an independent agency.
  105. 105 The employees of the plant in question had complete freedom to vote by secret ballot for the union of their choice.
  106. 106 The conclusive answer to the charge is that the United Electrical Workers themselves, after petitioning the N.L.R.B to set aside the election on the basis of the Secretary's speech, later withdrew the charges.
• Other Allegations
  107. 107 No specific instances being adduced in substantiation of the remaining charges, the Government of the United States considers that they are too vague and general to require a reply and does not therefore make any comment on them.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Allegation concerning Restrictions of the Right to Strike
  108. 108 The complaint charges that severe restrictions have been placed on the exercise of the right to strike, particularly in the railway industry. In support of this allegation it cites the seizure of the railroads by the Government of the United States and their purely nominal operation by the Army in 1950951 ; nominal, according to the complaint because, in fact, private management retained absolute control. The striking railway workers were threatened with dismissal, with loss of all seniority rights if they did not return to work, and the Director of Defense Mobilization declared in a broadcast that the strike was not a means that railway workers could legitimately employ.
  109. 109 It is clear that the facts alleged by the complainant-and particularly the dismissal with loss of seniority rights of workers refusing to return to work-cannot be dismissed out of hand on the plea that " even if proved they would not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights ".
  110. 110 It is therefore necessary to consider whether, taking into account the reply of the Government, this allegation appears to establish that there has been an infringement of trade union rights in a sufficiently conclusive way as to justify the Governing Body in recommending that further action should be taken on it.
  111. 111 In alleging that restrictions have been placed on the right to strike, particularly in the railway industry, the complainant implies that these restrictions have also occurred in other industries. The facts alleged, however, as the Government points out, refer only to the railway industry. The general character of the allegation as formulated by the complainant need not, it thus seems, occupy the Governing Body, by reason of the manifest lack of evidence in respect of industries other than the railway industry, and the allegation should, consequently, be examined as referring only to the labour dispute which took place in that industry in 1950-1951.
  112. 112 In this connection, the Government admits that the President of the United States ordered the seizure of the railroads and placed them under the control of the Army, and it does not deny the charge that the striking workers were ordered to return to work on pain of dismissal. It points out, however, that in ordering seizure of the railroads the President acted in accordance with an Act of Congress of 1916 which authorises him to ensure the continued operation of the railroads in the event of war, threat of war or national emergency. Such a state of emergency, it states, resulted in the United States consequent upon the events in Korea. The security of the United Nations forces in Korea depends upon adequate and timely delivery of supplies and munitions and the railroads play an important role in these logistics. The President, it states, acted only when all other methods of settlement provided by law had been exhausted. In less critical periods, labour disputes in the railway industry have not caused the Government to take measures of control (for example the strike on the Missouri Pacific line in September and October 1949).
  113. 113 It appears to be clear from the particulars supplied by the Government that the action of the President of the United States in ordering seizure of the railroads did not constitute an arbitrary measure intended to restrict the trade union rights of the railway workers, but was an essentially temporary measure dictated by considerations of public interest, taken in order to deal with a national emergency situation and after the exhaustion of all other methods of settlement of the dispute provided by law.
  114. 114 The argument based on the speech of the Director of Defense Mobilization does not appear convincing since, the phrases quoted from his speech once placed in context, it becomes clear that he in no way denied to the railway workers the basic right to strike but that he merely stated that a strike against the whole nation, particularly in a time of great peril, is not a legitimate means of furthering the workers' interests. Furthermore, as the Government brings out, proof that the right to strike has not been unduly restricted in the United States is to be found in the reports of the Bureau of Labor Statistics which show, in particular, that there occurred during the last three months of 1950 and the first eight months of 1951 respectively 1,097 and 3,075 new work stoppages involving altogether approximately 1,900,000 workers.
  115. 115 As for the charge that the decision to turn over to the Army the operation of the railroads was merely taken for the sake of appearances, private management actually retaining absolute control of the industry, it appears to be disproved by the Government's affirmation that the Army, with full authority, ordered wage increases when the railway workers were ordered to return to work.
  116. 116 Under these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the complainant has not furnished proof that the measures taken by the Government of the United States were utilised for a purpose other than that of safeguarding national security in such a manner as to deprive the workers of guarantees for the protection of their rights and that therefore this allegation should be dismissed.
• Allegations concerning the Institution of Blacklists under National Security Regulations
  117. 117 The complainant alleges that in certain industries blacklisting has been instituted under the " national security " regulations. In substantiation of this charge the complainant cites the case of the maritime industry, in which the Coast Guard has been authorised to presume the guilt of maritime workers and to discharge them without notice, cause or right of appeal. Basing itself on a quotation from a union publication, the complainant claims in particular that by means of these regulations a union militant could be blackballed from his ship because his " habits of life " show him to be a " trouble-maker " in the eyes of the Coast Guard, and that the so-called right of appeal is illusory.
  118. 118 It is clear that the allegation presented by the complainant cannot be dismissed out of hand on the plea that even if proved it would not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights.
  119. 119 It is therefore necessary to consider whether, taking into account the reply of the Government, this allegation seems to establish that there has been an infringement of trade union rights in a sufficiently conclusive way as to justify the Committee in recommending that further action should be taken on it.
  120. 120 Though the allegation refers to the institution of blacklisting " in certain industries " it deals in fact with the maritime industry alone. The general character of the allegation, as formulated by the complainant, need not, it thus seems, be considered, by reason of the manifest lack of evidence in respect of industries other than the maritime industry, and the allegation should consequently be examined as referring only to the security regulations in that industry.
  121. 121 In this connection the Government points out that, in prescribing regulations designed to safeguard the merchant marine and waterfront facilities when these are endangered for various reasons, and particularly through subversive activity, the President of the United States was acting in accordance with an Act of Congress of 1950. These regulations, designed to supplement a voluntary security plan executed in July 1950 on a tripartite basis, provide, notably, as a pre-condition to employment upon the category of United States vessels designated by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, for the issuance of credentials which will be granted by the Commandant only when he is satisfied that the character and habits of life of the person concerned are such that his presence is not inimical to the security of the United States.
  122. 122 A provision of such a general character is obviously susceptible of a wide variety of interpretations, but the Government states that the Commandant of the Coast Guard has issued regulations which clearly and specifically set forth the reasons for which he will reject an application for credentials. The Government states these reasons, which include the fact of being or of having recently been a member of or affiliated to or sympathetically associated with any foreign or domestic organisation, association, movement, group or combination of persons, (i) which is or which has been designated by the Attorney General as being totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive; (ii) which has adopted, or which has been designated by the Attorney General as having adopted, a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts of force or violence to deny other persons their rights under the Constitution of the United States ; or (iii) which seeks, or which has been designated by the Attorney General as seeking, to alter the form of the Government of the United States by unconstitutional means. However, the regulations specify that this category of reasons does not constitute an absolute and final impediment to the issuance of credentials, and the person concerned may obtain them if it is demonstrated, by more than a mere denial, that the security interests of the United States will not thereby be jeopardised. Further, it is provided that the Commandant's refusal is made only " if, on all the evidence and information available, reasonable grounds exist ". In opposition to the allegation of the complainant, the Government thus affirms that there is no presumption of guilt.
  123. 123 The Government also cites substantial extracts from the regulations issued by the President concerning the right of appeal open to any person whose application for credentials has been rejected by the Commandant, first to the Local Appeal Board and then to the National Board. The composition of these boards is tripartite and the procedure laid down provides a large number of safeguards intended to enable the appellant to present his views (for example, the right to be heard and to be represented by counsel, the right to challenge, within certain limits, the members of the board which is to hear his case, provision that every appeal must be accepted, etc.).
  124. 124 In view of the fact that the regulations in question supplement a voluntary security plan executed on a tripartite basis and provide for right of appeal to tripartite boards, and that the allegation made by the complainant is not substantiated by any example indicating that the security regulations in the maritime industry have actually been used for the institution of blacklists for purposes of anti-union discrimination, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to justify reference of the allegation to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission, and that this allegation should therefore be dismissed.
• Allegation concerning the Taft-Hartley Act
  125. 125 The complainant alleges that the Taft-Hartley Act continues in effect, that it has been described by the President of the C.I.O as " a first step towards fascism " and in October 1950, by the annual Convention of the A.F.L, as " a law which deprives American labour of its fundamental liberty of organisation ".
  126. 126 In its reply the Government declares that this law does indeed remain in force, but that the allegation is too general and does not contain any charges sufficiently specific to make possible a reply. The Government none the less communicates the text of the law in question, stating that none of its provisions are contrary to the Conventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Organisation.
  127. 127 The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 deals with a wide range of matters of which several are more or less directly connected with the exercise of trade union rights, but the complainant has not indicated in his allegation which provisions of this law, in his opinion, restrict the free exercise of trade union rights, simply referring to the Labor Management Relations Act as a whole.
  128. 128 Under these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the allegation made is not sufficiently precise to merit further examination, and should therefore be dismissed.
• Allegation concerning Political Intervention in Trade Union Proceedings
  129. 129 The complainant alleges that political intervention in trade union proceedings has become marked. Although employers are forbidden to intervene in representation elections in their plants, Government spokesmen have intervened. The complainant cites, in support of the allegation, the case of the Secretary of Labor, who urged the workers of a plant to vote for one of two contending unions in this plant, and claims that by reason of the threat implicit in this governmental intervention the union supported by the Government won the election.
  130. 130 It is clear that the allegation made by the complainant cannot be dismissed out of hand on the plea that, even if proved, it would not constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights.
  131. 131 It is therefore necessary to consider whether, taking into account the reply of the Government, this allegation appears to establish that there has been an infringement of trade union rights in a sufficiently conclusive manner to justify the Governing Body in recommending that further action should be taken on it.
  132. 132 Though the allegation refers to intervention by Government " spokesmen ", the only example cited in substantiation is a speech made by the Secretary of Labor in a particular plant. This being so, it would seem appropriate, as in the case of the allegations concerning restrictions of the right to strike and the institution of blacklists under national security regulations to consider it only in so far as it refers to this sole fact.
  133. 133 In this connection, the Government admits that the Secretary of Labor made a speech at a union rally and that he urged the workers of a particular plant to support one union in preference to another in the forth coming representation election. The Government states, however, that no threat was implied and that the employees had complete freedom to vote by secret ballot for the union of their choice. Conclusive evidence, it states, is provided by the fact that the rival union, which had petitioned the National Labor Relations Board-an independent agency charged with the prevention of unfair labour practices-to set aside the election on the basis of the Secretary's speech, subsequently withdrew the charges.
  134. 134 The crux of the matter would appear to be whether the participation of the Secretary of Labor was or could reasonably have been regarded by the workers concerned as being a threat which limited the complete freedom of the employees to vote by secret ballot for the union of their choice. Whether such participation could be so regarded would appear to depend on the circumstances and traditions of the country concerned and upon the safeguards which exist there for civic liberties and political freedom. In the present case the Committee considers that there was not, in fact, any coercion, particularly as the Secretary of Labor had no discretionary functions in regard to the election, responsibility for the organisation of which was vested in an independent agency, and it therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this allegation should be dismissed.
• Other Allegations
  135. 135 The other allegations are that the Immigration Statutes and the McCarran Act are discriminatorily applied against foreign-born officials of trade unions, that the right of members of unions of Canada and the United States belonging to the same federation to cross the border for purposes of consultation on trade union negotiations and matters of mutual interest has been impeded, that anti-trust proceedings have been used against unions under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, enacted originally to dissolve monopolies and trusts, and that contempt of court proceedings have been used in strike situations to destroy union financial resources.
  136. 136 The Government takes the same stand with respect to each of these four allegations. It considers that they refer to no concrete facts and that consequently they are too vague and general to require a reply. It therefore makes no comment on them.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 137. The complainant has not, in point of fact, made any effort to substantiate these four allegations by concrete examples. No evidence is presented to justify them. Under these circumstances the Committee considers that these four allegations are too vague to permit of consideration of the case on its merits, and, therefore, recommends the Governing Body to decide that they should be dismissed.