Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 6, 1953

Cas no 14 (Tchécoslovaquie) - Date de la plainte: 01-FÉVR.-51 - Clos

• Complaints presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and by the Workers' Group of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office Against the Government of Czechoslovakia

A. Analysis of the Complaints

1. 1030. The complaint of the I.C.F.T.U alleges that various measures taken by the Czechoslovak Government constitute a violation of trade union rights. It is claimed, in particular, that the Czechoslovak Government has, without consulting the workers, taken measures affecting their vital interests, such as the suppression of the five-day week, etc. ; that works councils have ceased to be independent and are composed of Government officials instead of true representatives of the workers ; that recourse to forced labour is a current practice ; and that the Government has resorted to the most questionable measures in order to increase production.
2. 1031. The complaint presented by the Workers' group of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office supplementing the complaint of the I.C.F.T.U contains a number of allegations of violations of trade union rights which are grouped under the following heads.
   • Right of Association
3. 1032. The single trade union organisation known as the " Revolutionary Trade Union Movement " has a monopoly of the right of association guaranteed to it by the Constitution and by a special Act of 1946. An Act of 1951 enumerates by name the organisations which are authorised to exercise the right of association. The monopoly of the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement is further protected by an Act of 1950 which lays down various penalties for any attempt at unauthorised association in opposition. The fact that there is a monopoly shows, in itself alone, that the Revolutionary. Trade Union Movement is not a trade union properly speaking. Moreover, by according this monopoly to a single trade union organisation the State reveals its intention of submitting trade unions to systematic surveillance, as is apparent especially from the Act of 1951.
   • The Single Trade Union Organisation
4. 1033. The tasks allocated to the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement by legislation are tasks which are ordinarily assigned to the directors of undertakings and are not related to the normal activities and aims of trade union organisations. This is particularly apparent from the Act of 1948 which determined the tasks to be assigned to the trade unions within the Five-Year Plan (tasks designed essentially to increase the output of labour), from the Act of 1946 concerning the single trade union organisation (which recognised no rights of the working classes other than those which they merit by their participation in the building up of the régime), and from the rules adopted by the second National Trade Union Congress of 1949. The trade union groups within the undertakings have no other rights than those of imposing on the worker, trade union or not, respect for the measures taken by the management. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the organic structure of the Revolutionary Trade Union Movement is dominated by a rigorous centralisation. The so-called elected bodies of the trade union movement are furnished with an apparatus composed of paid secretaries nominated and directed from above. In the view of the complainants, the constraint of the workers could not be carried to a more effective degree. Finally, the trade union groups being organised on the principle of "one undertaking-a single organisation ", the worker, in his union, finds himself watched by the same man who supervises his work.
   • Representation within the Undertaking
5. 1034. By the Decree of 1945 concerning works councils, the interests which must be represented by the works council are not the interests of the workers in the industries of the country but those visualised by popular democratic ideology. The complainants analyse in detail the legislative provisions relating to the election of members of works councils and contend that, by the total subordination of the works councils to the single trade union, the last traces of representation of the workers within the undertaking are wiped out.
   • The Right to Strike
6. 1035. Although one would look in vain for the word " strike " among those specifying the actions liable to penalty in the popular democratic legislation, the strike, among all the weapons of defence of the workers, is the one which would be most brutally repressed. This is particularly evident from an Act of 1950 which likens strikes to sabotage.

B. Communication of the Complaints to the Government

1. 1036. The complaint presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to the Economic and Social Council was communicated to the Czechoslovak Government by a letter dated 20 April 1951.
2. 1037. In accordance with the decision taken by the Committee at its meeting in January 1952, the Director-General on 22 January 1952 addressed a letter of reminder to the Czechoslovak Government requesting it to forward any observations it might care to make to the International Labour Office not later than 15 February 1952.
3. 1038. No reply having been received from the Czechoslovak Government by the date of its meeting in March 1952, and a further complaint having been lodged by the Workers' group of the Governing Body, the Committee decided to postpone its examination of the cases and to communicate the new complaint to the Czechoslovak Government for its observations, with a request that it should forward its observations not later than 1 May 1952. In accordance with this decision, the Director-General despatched a letter to the Czechoslovak Government on 20 March 1952. A further letter of reminder was also sent to the Government on 3 May 1952.
4. 1039. No reply having been received from the Czechoslovak Government, the Governing Body, at its 119th Session (May 1952) on the recommendation of the Committee, decided:
   • (a) to ask the Director-General to make a further approach to the Czechoslovak Government on its behalf with a view to obtaining such observations as it might wish to make concerning the complaint presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the further complaint presented by the Workers' group of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office ;
   • (b) to inform the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations of the position with regard to this matter.
5. 1040. The Director-General communicated this decision of the Governing Body to the Czechoslovak Government and to the Economic and Social Council by letters dated 28 and 27 June respectively.
6. 1041. A further letter of reminder was also sent to the Czechoslovak Government on 14 November 1952.
7. 1042. No reply has so far been received from the Czechoslovak Government.
8. 1043. On the occasion of the discussion of the Sixth Report of the I.L.O to the United Nations at the 14th Session of the Economic and Social Council, the representative of the Czechoslovak Government, in a speech delivered on 17 July 1952, explained the reasons why his Government had not replied to the request of the Governing Body Committee on Freedom of Association for information concerning the complaint brought forward by the I.C.F.T.U against his country.
9. 1044. The relevant passages in his speech were as follows:
   • The I.L.O report gave a summary of the work done by the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association. The I.L.O representative had told the Council that the Government of Czechoslovakia ... had not replied to the Commission within the time limit laid down. The Czechoslovak delegation had stated on many occasions that the protection of trade union rights was closely linked with that of fundamental human rights, which devolved upon the United Nations.
   • If the protection of trade union rights was entrusted to a special body, such rights were exposed to serious danger. The Czechoslovak Government had therefore not approved the setting up of that Commission, whose work was to suppress and not protect trade union rights in capitalist and underdeveloped countries and in colonies. The Commission was the instrument of the hostile propaganda against countries wishing to defend peace. That was the meaning of a decision taken by the Commission and by the Governing Body as regards an alleged complaint against Czechoslovakia. The purpose of such propaganda was to seek to hide from the working classes of the capitalist countries the increasing suppression of trade union rights. It aimed at opposing the will of the working class in its campaign for the improvement of workers' living conditions and for the maintenance of peace.
   • That campaign was, however, doomed to failure. The workers of the world knew the part played by trade unions in countries wishing to defend peace, especially in Czechoslovakia. They also knew that no capitalist countries assured to trade unions such freedom as they enjoyed in the peace-loving countries. The Czechoslovak delegation saw in the alleged complaint against its country an act of hostile propaganda and categorically rejected the decision taken by the Commission and the Governing Body.
   • The violation of trade union rights in capitalist countries was one of the forms of war preparation. Capitalist Governments wished to suppress trade unions which disclosed the aggressive plans of those Governments. On the other hand, the effective safeguarding and protection of trade union rights was an integral part of the campaign for peace. The I.L.O had helped to suppress trade union rights instead of standing out strongly in their defence.
   • The Czechoslovak delegation considered that the I.L.O, by supporting the violation of trade union rights in capitalist countries, by backing propaganda directed against countries wishing to defend peace, and by taking part in manoeuvres to destroy the unity of workers, had docilely become the tool of the warmongers ....

The Committee's recommendations

• C. Conclusions
  1045. 1045 It appears from the foregoing analysis that the complaints were duly communicated to the Czechoslovak Government but that the Government, in spite of repeated requests, has made no reply. It would also appear from the statements made by the Government's representative before the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations that the Czechoslovak Government has deliberately refrained from making any reply. In these circumstances and having regard to the fact that the allegations contained in the complaints are of a precise character, the Committee recommends that the case merits further examination by the Governing Body.
• Geneva, 25 February 1953.