ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 265, Junio 1989

Caso núm. 1463 (Liberia) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 15-JUN-88 - Cerrado

Visualizar en: Francés - Español

  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

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

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

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.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer