Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 386, Juin 2018

Cas no 3210 (Algérie) - Date de la plainte: 26-AVR. -16 - En suivi

Allegations: The complainant alleges a systematic crackdown on its officers and members, and particularly its President, by an enterprise in the energy sector since the trade union’s establishment and the public authorities’ refusal to put an end to these violations of trade union rights

1. 86. The complaint is contained in communications dated 26 April, 22 June and 26 October 2016 and 3 January, 5 February, 9 March, 27 April, 18 May and 6 August 2017 from the Autonomous National Union of Electricity and Gas Workers (SNATEGS). The General and Autonomous Confederation of Workers in Algeria (CGATA) supported the complaint in a communication of 17 May 2017; Public Services International (PSI), the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) and IndustriALL Global Union (IndustriALL) in communications dated 18 and 19 December 2017; and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 6 February 2018. The PSA, the IUF, IndustriALL and the ITUC mention a jointly signed communication of 20 December 2017, which contains additional information on the present case.
2. 87. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 27 October 2016, and 31 July and 16 October 2017.
3. 88. Algeria has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 89. In its communications of 26 April and 22 June 2016, SNATEGS describes itself as a recently-established trade union that has been registered by the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security (Record No. 101 of 30 December 2013) and is represented in the energy sector, including the SONELGAZ Group, Algeria’s second largest public corporation with 44 subsidiaries throughout the country (hereinafter “the enterprise”). SNATEGS states that although it has over 23,000 members throughout the country, its union branches have no presidents because the enterprise pressured, harassed and dismissed them. The complainant explains that the enterprise is using all the means at its disposal to reject SNATEGS as a social partner in order to preserve its relationship with the historical trade union that has been in place since 1962 (the General Union of Algerian Workers). According to SNATEGS, its emergence as the largest registered independent trade union in the public energy sector is encountering resistance from the public authorities and preventing the enterprise from carrying out various illegal practices.
2. 90. For example, the complainant reports that although it has been registered by the authorities, the enterprise refuses to recognize this registration. According to SNATEGS, not only has the enterprise refused to grant it the facilities to which it is legally entitled, it is continuing, with total impunity, to take measures that violate the union’s officers’ and members’ right to organize; the authorities have been informed but have taken no action. SNATEGS states that it brought a complaint before the labour inspectorate pursuant to Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 on modalities for exercising the right to organize, but the complaint was rejected on the grounds that the union was not representative. In that connection, SNATEGS recalls that, according to the Act, a trade union’s representativeness should only be taken into account in the context of collective bargaining, not in matters relating to its right to carry out trade union activities. The labour inspectorate’s failure to take action makes it complicit in the enterprise’s actions. SNATEGS states that although it also referred the issue of the violation of its trade union rights to the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security and the Prime Minister, no action was taken. The complainant provides copies of the communications sent to these government authorities.
3. 91. SNATEGS also reports the wrongful dismissal of the following officers: its President, Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa, for calling a strike, albeit in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 02/90 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike and of Algeria’s Constitution; its General Secretary, Mr Boualem Bendiaf, for activities contrary to the interests of the enterprise; its National Secretary for Internal Affairs and International Relations, Mr Raouf Mellal, and the trade union representative for the wilaya (province) of Guelma, Mr Mourad Semoudi, for joining a trade union that was “not authorized” by the employer and refusing to join the enterprise’s existing trade union; the trade union representative for the wilaya of Oued Souf, Mr Khemis Chikha Belkacem, for refusing to authorize a wage deduction of 200 Algerian dinars (DZD) to pay the enterprise trade union’s dues; and the trade union representative for the wilaya of Tipaza, Mr Faouzi Maouche, after joining the union. The enterprise is also engaged in the judicial harassment of Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa and Mr Mellal, having accused them of defamation and violation of the right to work, as a result of which the court fined them DZD20,000. Lastly, SNATEGS reports that 983 of its members were brought before disciplinary committees and told that they must resign from the union or face labour sanctions.
4. 92. In its communications of 26 October 2016 and 3 January and 5 February 2017, SNATEGS reports that the enterprise is continuing to harass and retaliate against the union’s officers with impunity. It states that a member of its Women’s Committee, Ms Sarah Benmaiche, has been harassed and subsequently dismissed and that the enterprise and the authorities have refused to implement a court decision in her favour, which confirmed the harassment and ordered her reinstatement. The complainant also reports that the members of its National Office have been pressured and that some of them, whom it identifies by name, have been threatened with dismissal and ultimately resigned from the union or agreed to join the enterprise’s other union.
5. 93. Lastly, SNATEGS reports the judicial harassment of Mr Mellal, who had become the union’s President; he was prosecuted for unlawful possession of documents after the enterprise brought a complaint against him in July 2016. During his interrogation, the judicial police refused to tell him which documents he was accused of possessing unlawfully. On 15 December 2016, despite the lack of evidence, he was informed that the Guelma court had convicted him in absentia and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment without parole and a fine of DZD50,000. According to SNATEGS, the real reason for the enterprise’s retaliation against Mr Mellal was the fact that, as part of his trade union duties, he had reported that the enterprise was engaging in overpricing, as a result of which it had been obliged to take corrective measures after SNATEGS shared this information with the price regulation authority.
6. 94. In a communication received on 17 May 2017, the CGATA states that the enterprise’s retaliation campaign culminated in the suspension of 93 representatives and the prosecution of 663 trade unionists in May 2017. It also reports that in May 2017, the police intervened to break a strike called by SNATEGS, for which there was widespread support. This retaliation campaign is being carried out by the enterprise at all levels and is symptomatic of its refusal to engage in dialogue with SNATEGS.
7. 95. In its communication of 27 April 2017, SNATEGS provides detailed information on its acts of protest, including a three-day “dignity” strike (21–23 March 2017) in which marches and sit-ins were held in the cities of Tizi Ouzou, Bejaia and Algiers. SNATEGS reports that on each of these occasions, the police prevented the demonstrators from reaching the meeting points in the city centre, arrested the union’s officers and interrogated them for several hours, insulting and harassing them. Among other things, SNATEGS states with regret that during a sit-in held in front of the Ministry of Labour in Algiers, not only did the authorities refuse to meet with a trade union delegation that was prepared to submit its grievances, they also had the police clear the area. In a communication dated 5 June 2017, the complainant reports that the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security has notified it that its registration has been cancelled. According to SNATEGS, this constitutes retaliation by the public authorities against an organization which, despite the enterprise’s harassment measures, has successfully carried out nationwide protests such as the general strike of 21–23 March 2017.
8. 96. In communications dated 6 August 2017, SNATEGS provides details concerning the statement made by the Government’s representative in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2017) during the examination of Algeria’s implementation of Convention No. 87. SNATEGS reports, first, that the Government’s representative maintained that the trade union’s President was still Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa although Mr Mellal had subsequently been elected, as confirmed by an order issued by the El-Harrouch court (Judgment No. 0006/17 of 2 January 2017, a copy of which is attached to the complaint). SNATEGS considers that the Government representative’s denial of this situation constitutes serious government interference with its operations. SNATEGS notes that the Government merely stated that Mr Mellal was no longer employed by the enterprise and thus could not claim to represent its workers, without explaining that he had been wrongfully dismissed for his trade union involvement in 2013. SNATEGS also reports that while the Government states that Mr Mellal has a law degree, it fails to mention that he was hired by the enterprise as a legal adviser but has not held this position since his dismissal. SNATEGS explains that section 49 of its articles of association provides that union members who have been arbitrarily dismissed do not lose their membership status.
9. 97. SNATEGS further alleges that the enterprise is carrying out an unprecedented campaign of retaliation against its members. For example, the organization reports that criminal complaints for obstruction of work have been brought against 12 trade union representatives, interim orders have been issued in respect of 900 striking workers and 250 trade union representatives have received notification of compulsory leave. Once again reporting that its representatives are being continually pressured to resign under threat of dismissal, SNATEGS provides a detailed list of 46 trade union representatives who have been wrongfully dismissed. It states that the systematic crackdown has affected over 1,500 of its members and requests the Committee to urge the Government to respect domestic law and the international Conventions on freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, demand that the public authorities investigate the enterprise’s harassment measures and order that the wrongfully dismissed trade unionists be reinstated.
10. 98. In a communication dated 20 December 2017, the PSI, the IUF, IndustriALL and the ITUC report that since the establishment of SNATEGS, the enterprise has been systematically cracking down on its officers and members; they recall the history of widespread disciplinary measures and arrests and the conviction of its President. The international trade union federations express concern at the intensified retaliation against SNATEGS by the enterprise and the Government since the June 2017 session of the International Labour Conference. They request the Government to ensure that the trade union rights of SNATEGS and its members are respected, that the enterprise halts its crackdown immediately and that the trade unionists who were wrongfully dismissed merely for participating in union activities are reinstated.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 99. In communications dated 27 October 2016 and 16 October 2017, the Government confirms that SNATEGS has been registered as an organization since December 2013 as required by law. At the outset, it explains that according to Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa, President of SNATEGS, Mr Mellal, who signed the complaint, has not been a member of SNATEGS since his membership in the National Council was frozen in December 2015. Moreover, Mr Mellal is no longer employed by the electricity distribution company for the eastern part of the country (SDE), located in Guelma and a subsidiary of the SONELGAZ group (hereinafter “the group”); he is currently working as an attorney in Guelma. Therefore, Mr Mellal is not empowered to bring a complaint before the Committee on Freedom of Association on behalf of SNATEGS.
2. 100. The Government explains that the dispute in the enterprise arose from the fact that SNATEGS’ members, who were not on the staff of the enterprises in question and did not have trade union branches there, launched a membership campaign in the workplace during working hours in violation of the enterprise’s internal regulations. The enterprise also accuses SNATEGS of campaigning and collecting funds for a trade union that had no branches in the group’s enterprises and was separate from it under the Commercial Code. Thus, there are different interpretations of the provisions on trade union representation in the holding company, which comprises management, 44 subsidiaries and five independent enterprises.
3. 101. The trade unionists’ position relies on the fact that they established a registered trade union under the group’s name and could therefore open branches in its enterprises since the founding members worked in three different subsidiaries. However, according to the enterprise’s legal department, the group’s enterprises are legally independent from one another under the Commercial Code and each of them is, by law, an employing organization separate from the other legal entities; thus, a trade union established in one of the group’s enterprises cannot be recognized in another of them. Based on this interpretation, the enterprise considers that a trade union representing workers in all of the group’s entities must be a branch, in the form of a union or a federation, of one of the unions that already have a presence in each of those entities. The Government also states that SNATEGS could bring any dispute regarding application of the provisions of Act No. 90-14 before the competent courts and the court would be required to issue an enforceable judgment within 60 days, notwithstanding any objection or appeal.
4. 102. With regard to the dismissals mentioned in the complaint, the Government maintains that the reasons had nothing to do with the trade union activities of the representatives concerned, as seen from the rationale set out in the court judgments regarding them. Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa, Mr Mellal and Mr Rouabhia are accused of disciplinary offences, namely disturbances in and disruption of workplaces and an attempted assault on the Acting Director of the enterprise’s Guelma branch, committed in the presence of witnesses. The complaint brought by the branch resulted in the men’s conviction for violation of the right to work; they were fined DZD2,000 and sentenced to pay court costs and damages of DZD20,000 in. As for Mr Chikha Belkacem, Mr Benzenache and Mr Maouche, the disciplinary committee’s rulings state that they were terminated for violating internal regulations and undermining the work environment.
5. 103. The workers in question referred the matter to the labour inspectorate for mediation, but the attempt culminated in a report stating that mediation had not been achieved; Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa then brought an appeal for reinstatement after wrongful dismissal before the El Harrouch court. On 15 December 2014, the court issued a judgment cancelling the dismissal and sentenced the enterprise to pay DZD2 million for wrongful dismissal, DZD50,000 in damages and DZD400 in costs. The enterprise appealed this judgment before the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the case.
6. 104. In its communication of 31 July 2017, the Government mentions the statement made by its representative during the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards’ examination of Algeria’s implementation of Convention No. 87 at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2017). With respect to the alleged dissolution of SNATEGS in May 2017, the Government’s representative indicated that the trade union had not been dissolved and was in operation in accordance with the law. He also emphasized that Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa was the President of SNATEGS and that Mr Mellal, who was working as an attorney, could not claim to represent the workers of an enterprise by which he was not employed. On this point, the Government states that the President of SNATEGS has brought a complaint of usurpation of function against Mr Mellal and that it will inform the Office of the judgment in the case.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 105. The Committee notes that the present case concerns allegations that an enterprise in the energy sector has refused to allow an officially registered trade union to operate within it, that the enterprise is cracking down on the union’s officers and members, and that the public authorities, having been notified by the union, have refused to put an end to these violations of trade union rights or to enforce the court judgments in the union’s favour.
2. 106. The Committee takes note of the allegations made by SNATEGS, a trade union in the electricity and gas sector with 23,000 members, that although it has been officially registered since 2013, the relevant enterprise has not only refused to grant it the facilities required for its activities but has carried out a genuine crackdown on its members in order to retain the historical trade union. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the enterprise cites the fact that it is not representative as grounds for refusing to grant it the facilities to which it is legally entitled.
3. 107. On this point, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the issue is how to interpret the provisions of Act No. 90-14 of 2 June 1990 (on modalities for exercising the right to organize) on trade union representation in an enterprise, which, in this case, is a group that comprises management, 44 subsidiaries and five independent enterprises. According to the enterprise’s legal department, the group’s enterprises are legally independent from one another under the Commercial Code and each of them is, by law, an employing organization separate from the other legal entities; thus, a trade union established in one of the group’s enterprises cannot be recognized in another of them. Based on this interpretation, the enterprise considers that a trade union representing workers in all of the group’s entities must be a branch, in the form of a union or a federation, of one of the unions that already have a presence in each of those entities. The Government indicates that SNATEGS’ position relies on the fact that the trade union is registered under the group’s name and can therefore open branches in its enterprises. The Committee also takes note of SNATEGS’ statement that the legal provisions on a trade union’s representativeness should only be taken into account in the context of collective bargaining, not in matters relating to trade union activities.
4. 108. In that regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that on many occasions it has recalled the position of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations that, where the law of a country draws a distinction between the most representative trade union and other trade unions, such a system should not have the effect of preventing minority unions from functioning and at least having the right to make representations on behalf of their members and to represent them in cases of individual grievances. Furthermore, the granting of exclusive rights to the most representative organization should not mean that the existence of other unions, to which certain involved workers might wish to belong, is prohibited. Minority organizations should be permitted to carry out their activities and at least to have the right to speak on behalf of their members and to represent them [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 1387–1388]. The Committee also observes that sections 40 et seq. of Act No. 90-14 govern the modalities of trade union representation in the enterprise. Section 40, in particular, states that “in every public or private enterprise; in their various workplaces, where the enterprise has more than one; and in every public establishment, institution or administration, any representative trade union within the meaning of sections 34 and 35 of this Act may establish a trade union branch in accordance with its articles of association in order to represent its members’ material and moral interests”. The Committee further observes that sections 34–36 of the Act establish the conditions under which a trade union is considered representative and that sections 46 et seq. of the Act establish the facilities to be granted to trade union representatives. While the Committee does not have sufficient information to determine whether SNATEGS is representative in the enterprise, it expects the Government to ensure respect for the aforementioned decisions applying the principles of freedom of association concerning the rights of minority trade unions and to take all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented in respect of SNATEGS if it is established that it meets the criteria for representativeness.
5. 109. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the dispute in the enterprise arose from the fact that SNATEGS’ members, who were not on the staff of the enterprises in question and did not have trade union branches there, launched a membership campaign in the workplace during working hours in violation of the enterprise’s internal regulations. While noting that the Government also states that the founders of SNATEGS were working in three different subsidiaries, the Committee recalls that workers’ representatives should be granted access to all workplaces in the undertaking where such access is necessary to enable them to carry out their representation function. Trade union representatives who are not employed in the undertaking but whose trade union has members employed therein should be granted access to the undertaking. The granting of such facilities should not impair the efficient operation of the undertaking concerned. Lastly, the Committee has already had to suggest on several occasions that, if necessary, workers’ organizations and employers could reach agreements so that access to workplaces, during and outside working hours, can be granted to workers’ organizations without impairing the functioning of the establishment or service [see Compilation, op. cit., paras 1591, 1593 and 1599].
6. 110. In numerous communications sent between April 2016 and August 2017, SNATEGS has reported the harassment and wrongful dismissal of many of its members, and particularly of its President, its General Secretary, the members of its National Board and its representatives in various wilayas. In April 2016 it reported, specifically, the wrongful dismissal of its President, Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa, for calling a strike, albeit in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 02/90 on the prevention and settlement of collective labour disputes and the exercise of the right to strike and of Algeria’s Constitution; its General Secretary, Mr Boualem Bendiaf, for activities contrary to the interests of the enterprise; its National Secretary for Internal Affairs and International Relations, Mr Raouf Mellal, and the trade union representative for the wilaya of Guelma, Mr Mourad Semoudi, for joining a trade union that was “not authorized” by the employer and refusing to join the enterprise’s existing trade union; the trade union representative for the wilaya of Oued Souf, Mr Khemis Chikha Belkacem, for refusing to authorize a wage deduction of DZD200 to pay the enterprise trade union’s dues; and the trade union representative for the wilaya of Tipaza, Mr Faouzi Maouche, after joining the union. In its communication of 26 October 2016, SNATEGS states that a member of its Women’s Committee, Ms Sarah Benmaiche, has been harassed and subsequently dismissed; in its communication of 3 January 2017, it reports that not only the enterprise, but also the police have threatened young members of its National Board, as a result of which two of them have resigned from the union; in its communication of 9 March 2017, it expresses concern at the situation of the union’s representative for the wilaya of Tizi Ouzou, Mr Taleb Boukhalfa; and in a communication dated 6 August 2017, it sends a list of 46 of its representatives or members of its National Board, national committees, national federations and trade union branches in the wilayas who have been wrongfully dismissed by the enterprise.
7. 111. The Committee notes that the Government, in its reply, mentions only some of the cases of alleged harassment and dismissal. In general terms, it states that the reasons for the dismissals had nothing to do with trade union activities, including in the case of the union’s President, Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa, and two members of its National Board, Mr Mellal and Mr Rouabhia; they were accused of disciplinary offences, namely disturbances in and disruption of workplaces and an attempted assault on the Acting Director of the enterprise’s Guelma branch, committed in the presence of witnesses. The complaint brought by the branch resulted in the men’s conviction for violation of the right to work; they were fined DZD2,000 and sentenced to pay court costs and damages of DZD20,000. The Government states that, according to the rulings of the enterprise’s disciplinary committee, the union’s wilaya representatives, Mr Chikha Belkacem, Mr Benzenache and Mr Maouche, were dismissed for violating internal regulations and undermining the work environment. The Government indicates that the workers in question referred the matter to the labour inspectorate for mediation, but the attempt culminated in a report stating that mediation had not been achieved; Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa then brought an appeal for reinstatement after wrongful dismissal before the El-Harrouch court. On 15 December 2014, the court issued a judgment cancelling the dismissal and sentenced the enterprise to pay DZD2 million for wrongful dismissal, DZD50,000 in damages and DZD400 in costs. The enterprise appealed this judgment before the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the case.
8. 112. The Committee recalls that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. However, the Committee also recalls that the principle that a worker or trade union official should not suffer prejudice by reason of his or her trade union activities does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds a trade union office confers immunity against dismissal irrespective of the circumstances [see Compilation, op. cit., paras 1117 and 1119]. Noting with concern the especially large number of union representatives who, according to the complainant, have been wrongfully dismissed, and recalling that the Government has a list of the names of all the representatives who have been dismissed, the Committee urges the Government to make inquiries in order to establish the grounds for these dismissals and, if they prove to have resulted from legitimate trade union activities, to take the necessary steps to secure the workers’ reinstatement without loss of pay and ensure the application of the corresponding legal sanctions against the enterprise. If reinstatement is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, the workers concerned should be paid adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of these inquiries without delay.
9. 113. The Committee notes that according to SNATEGS, the court ruled in favour of a trade union representative, Ms Sarah Benmaiche, in 2015, confirming that she had been harassed and ordering her reinstatement. However, the enterprise allegedly refused to implement the court’s judgment unless the public authorities, including the Ministry of Labour (which had been notified by SNATEGS) obliged it to do so. The Committee urges the Government to indicate without delay whether there has been any follow-up on this matter and, in particular, whether Ms Benmaiche has been reinstated pursuant to the court judgment and whether she is still carrying out trade union activities.
10. 114. The Committee also takes note of the allegations concerning acts of protest, including a three-day “dignity” strike (21–23 March 2017) in which marches and sit-ins were held in the cities of Tizi Ouzou, Bejaia and Algiers. SNATEGS reports that on each of these occasions, the police prevented the demonstrators from reaching the meeting points in the city centre, arrested the union’s officers and interrogated them for several hours, insulting and harassing them. Lastly, SNATEGS states with regret that during a sit-in held in front of the Ministry of Labour in Algiers, not only did the authorities refuse to meet with a trade union delegation that was prepared to submit its grievances, they also had the police clear the area. The Committee notes that in his 2017 statement in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, the Government representative maintained that the strike had been called in violation of the provisions of Act No. 89-28 on public meetings and demonstrations; that its purpose had been to disrupt and disturb the peace and that the demonstrators had therefore been subject to the penalties envisaged in the Act; and that the police had intervened in accordance with the law and with international standards on the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly. On this point, the Committee considers it useful to recall that while workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstration to defend their occupational interests, trade union organizations should conduct themselves responsibly and respect the peaceful manner in which the right of assembly should be exercised. Furthermore, the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace [see Compilation, op. cit., paras 208, 211 and 217]. The Committee would also like to recall that the arrest, even if only briefly, of trade union leaders and trade unionists, and of the leaders of employers’ organizations, for exercising legitimate activities in relation with their right of association constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association and to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that it is not possible for a stable industrial relations system to function harmoniously in the country as long as trade unionists are subject to arrests and detentions [see Compilation, op. cit., paras 121 and 127]. The Committee expects the Government to ensure respect for the above.
11. 115. With regard to the alleged judicial harassment of Mr Mellal, formerly the union’s National Secretary for Internal Affairs and International Relations and later its President and signatory of the complaint that the Committee has before it, the Committee takes note of the statement that he was prosecuted for unlawful possession of documents after the enterprise brought a complaint against him in July 2016. According to SNATEGS, the enterprise was retaliating against Mr Mellal because, as part of his trade union duties, he had reported that the enterprise was engaging in overpricing, as a result of which it had been obliged to take corrective measures after this information was shared with the price regulation authority. The union reports that at the time of his arrest, Mr Mellal requested the judicial police officers who were interrogating him to produce the documents that he was accused of possessing unlawfully, but they refused to do so and that on 15 December 2016, despite the lack of evidence, he was informed that the Guelma court had convicted him in absentia and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment without parole and a fine of DZD50,000. His appeal of this judgment was denied in May 2017.
12. 116. The Committee takes note of the Government’s reiterated statement that Mr Mellal is working as an attorney and cannot claim to represent the workers of an enterprise by which he is not employed. The Government also states that the President of SNATEGS, Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa, has brought a complaint for usurpation of function against Mr Mellal and that it will inform the Office of the outcome of this complaint. In that connection, the Committee notes that SNATEGS accuses the Government of interfering in its activities by claiming that Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa is still President of the union although Mr Mellal has subsequently been elected, as confirmed by an order issued by the El Harrouch court (Judgment No. 0006/17 of 2 January 2017, a copy of which is attached to the complaint). SNATEGS also points out that the Government merely states that Mr Mellal is no longer employed by the enterprise and thus cannot claim to represent its workers, without explaining that he was wrongfully dismissed for his trade union involvement in 2013. Lastly, SNATEGS explains that section 49 of its articles of association provides that union members who have been arbitrarily dismissed do not lose their membership status. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa’s complaint against Mr Mellal for usurpation of function and, in the interim, urges it to adopt a neutral attitude in the case, including by refraining from any statement that might be viewed as a form of interference in the operations of SNATEGS.
13. 117. The Committee observes that, according to the CGATA, the enterprise’s crackdown on SNATEGS at all levels is symptomatic of its refusal to engage in dialogue with the trade union. The CGATA also reports that in May 2017, the police intervened to break a strike called by SNATEGS, for which there was widespread support. Furthermore, the Committee notes that in their communication of 20 December 2017, the international trade union federations that support the complaint report that since the establishment of SNATEGS, the enterprise has been systematically cracking down on its officers and members; they recall the history of widespread disciplinary measures and arrests and the conviction of its President and express concern at the intensified retaliation against SNATEGS by the enterprise and the Government since the June 2017 session of the International Labour Conference. They request the Government to ensure that the trade union rights of SNATEGS and its members are respected, that the enterprise halts its crackdown immediately and that the trade unionists who were wrongfully dismissed merely for participating in union activities are reinstated.
14. 118. In general terms, the Committee notes with deep concern the large number of officers and members of SNATEGS who are allegedly affected by discrimination on the part of the enterprise since the union’s establishment; during the crackdown, some 1,500 workers are said to have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, assault, compulsory leave and dismissal. The Committee is particularly concerned by the allegation that these discriminatory measures have intensified since the June 2017 session of the International Labour Conference. The Committee observes that the Government does not challenge the numbers claimed by SNATEGS. It therefore urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure peaceful labour relations in the enterprise and to address the serious acts of anti-union discrimination reported. To that end, it strongly urges the Government to ensure that all of the allegations of discrimination that are currently before it are investigated promptly and to keep it informed in that regard. The Committee also expects the Government to ensure that the relevant court judgments are duly implemented. Such measures should help to create an environment that will allow SNATEGS to carry out its activities without interference or intimidation.
15. 119. The Committee observes that in June 2017, the Committee on the Application of Standards requested the Government to agree to a direct contacts mission in order to assess the progress on pending matters that are relevant to some of the issues raised in the complaint. Noting that the direct contacts mission has not yet taken place, the Committee expects the Government to accept the mission so that, in this case, the measures taken in order to ensure that SNATEGS and its members enjoy an environment free from intimidation and violence and the progress achieved in that regard can be assessed.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 120. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee expects the Government to ensure respect for the aforementioned decisions applying the principles of freedom of association concerning the right of minority trade unions to carry out their activities and represent their members. It further expects the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the provisions of the Act are implemented in respect of SNATEGS if it is established that it meets the criteria for representativeness.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the appeal of the 15 December 2014 judgment of the El Harrouch court in the case involving Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa and the enterprise.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the complaint allegedly brought by Mr Abdallah Boukhalfa against Mr Mellal for usurpation of function and, in the interim, urges it to adopt a neutral attitude in the case, including by refraining from any statement that might be viewed as a form of interference in the operations of SNATEGS.
   • (d) The Committee urges the Government to indicate without delay whether Ms Benmaiche has been reinstated in accordance with the court judgment issued and whether she is still carrying out trade union activities.
   • (e) Noting with concern the especially large number of union representatives who, according to the complainant, have been wrongfully dismissed, and recalling that the Government has a list of the names of all the representatives who have been dismissed, the Committee urges the Government to make inquiries in order to establish the grounds for these dismissals and, if they prove to have resulted from legitimate trade union activities, to take the necessary steps to secure the workers’ reinstatement without loss of pay and ensure the application of the corresponding legal sanctions against the enterprise. If reinstatement is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, the workers concerned should be paid adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against anti-union dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of these inquiries without delay.
   • (f) The Committee strongly urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure peaceful labour relations in the enterprise and to address the serious acts of anti-union discrimination reported. To that end, it urges the Government to ensure that all of the allegations of discrimination that the Committee has before it are investigated promptly and to keep it informed in that regard. The Committee also expects the Government to ensure that the relevant court judgments are duly implemented. Such measures should help to create an environment that will allow SNATEGS to carry out its activities without interference or intimidation.
   • (g) Noting that the direct contacts mission requested by the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2017 has not yet taken place, the Committee expects the Government to accept the mission so that, in this case, the measures taken in order to ensure that SNATEGS and its members enjoy an environment free from intimidation and violence and the progress achieved in that regard can be assessed.