Definitive Report - Report No 96, 1967

Case No 491 (Sri Lanka) - Complaint date: 29-JUL-66 - Closed

1. 57. The complaint of the Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 29 July 1966. The Government of Ceylon furnished its observations on the complaint in a communication dated 27 January 1967.
2. 58. Ceylon has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 59. The complainants state that members of their affiliated organisation, the Government Clerical Service Union of Colombo, conducted a token strike on 8 January 1966 in protest against intended administrative measures to reorganise conditions of employment. It is alleged that the union had tried vainly to co-operate in settling outstanding service disputes before calling the strike as a mark of protest against proposed regulations under the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act which would adversely affect service conditions. The Government announced a state of emergency and then took the following measures. Firstly, it is alleged, the competent Ministers took steps to deduct one day's pay, impose fines and give warnings of liability to transfer in the case of public officers who took part in the strike, and to interdict from service those who called upon others to take part in the strike or who themselves took part in the demonstration on the same day, all this being contrary to the legal provisions which permit only the Public Service Commission to take such measures. Secondly, it is alleged, a number of interdicted officers received charge sheets which were drawn up in an irregular manner. Thirdly, the transfer of many public officers who remained away from work on 8 January was ordered in a manner said to have violated established rules and procedures. Fourthly, the fact that public officers were interdicted from visiting their own offices meant that, where they were office-bearers in branches of the union, they could not attend to their trade union duties.
2. 60. In its communication dated 27 January 1967 the Government states that the strike was called in protest against regulations introduced in Parliament in January 1966 under the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act, 1958, although the Secretary to the Treasury had declared that this was a political issue and not a trade union matter and had given a warning that all those who absented themselves from work on 8 January would be dealt with. Subsequently, says the Government, normal disciplinary rules were applied to those who absented themselves and failed to offer a proper explanation. Many of the persons concerned appealed to the Public Service Commission against decisions of their departmental heads, in accordance with normal disciplinary procedure, but the Commission rejected the appeals. Any transfers ordered were also subject to appeal to the Commission. Certain interdicted officers were prevented from visiting their offices in the interests of public security.
3. 61. The Trade Unions Ordinance confers certain immunities on trade union members, but in respect only of acts done " in contemplation of or in furtherance of a trade dispute ". Further, Administrative Regulation 267 of the Government's Manual of Procedure permits public officers to " express disagreement with or criticise any policy or decision of the Government affecting the pay and conditions of service of the members of any recognised association of public officers to which they belong ". But, says the Government, there was no " trade dispute ", and the strike was called in order to embarrass the Government on a purely political issue in no way affecting pay and conditions of service.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 62. The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are within its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, and has pointed out in many earlier cases that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised. Nevertheless, in various cases the Committee has declined to entertain allegations concerning strikes that were not of an occupational character, strikes intended to coerce a government on a political question or strikes directed against the policy of a government and not " in furtherance of a trade dispute ".
2. 63. In the present case the Government maintains that the strike was purely political, intended to embarrass the Government and not in furtherance of a trade dispute. The complainant contends that the strike was directed against proposed regulations under the Tamil Language (Special Provisions) Act which would have adversely affected service conditions. On the basis of the evidence before it the Committee is quite unable to say whether the strike in question was in furtherance of a trade dispute or not. The complainant has given no details of the contents of the regulations in question and no indication as to the manner in which employment conditions might have been adversely affected. The Committee must therefore conclude that, whatever the real nature of the dispute may have been, the complainants have failed to offer any evidence in substantiation of their contention that employment conditions were involved and that the strike, therefore, was in furtherance of a trade dispute.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 64. As the complainants have failed to show that the strike itself was related to the exercise of trade union rights, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.