The Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees filed a complaint with the ILO Committee alleging
Question:
The Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees filed a complaint with the ILO Committee alleging violations of trade union rights in France. The union explained that Mr. Laganier, administrator at the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), had been detached to the Ministry of Industry for seven years. On his return from leave he found furniture removers in his office and learned that he was being sent back to his office of origin with- out his superiors having requested it. Although the official reason given for the measure was that of budgetary restrictions, the union added that Laganier had cost the Ministry of Industry nothing because he continued to be paid by the INSEE. The union stated that Laganier has been trans- ferred not in his capacity as an official with INSEE, but as general secretary of a trade union, and the move was a violation of trade union rights in complete contradiction with ILO Conventions Nos. 98 and 135. According to the union, it was part of a more general, large-scale offensive against the trade union rights of public servants, organized by the French government.
In its reply the government stated that the director of the Office of the Minister of Industry had communicated the decision of Laganier’s return to his former office to his superiors. According to the government, the reason for the return was the reorganization of the services of the Ministry of Industry, which required a reduction in the number of permanent officials on loan from INSEE. Naturally Laganier was paid by INSEE, but there is an overall limitation on loaned officials so there are organizational ramifications for placements. Furthermore, the government pointed out that this decision was by no means an exceptional one because it fell within the nor- mal career development process of INSEE administrators, who are placed at the disposal of the Ministry of Industry on a purely temporary basis. The case of Laganier, who had been attached to the Ministry for over seven years, was, according to the government, analogous to that of all other INSEE administrators recruited at the same time or earlier, without exception, and they, like him, had returned to this body after spending several years working for the Ministry of Industry. The government added that the official’s departure had no effect on the CGT’s repre- sentation within the ministry. It concluded by stating that freedom of association was fully respected in this ministry, as in other departments, under the provisions of the prime minister’s circular dated September 14 relating to the exercise of trade union rights in the public service.
The union responded that ILO has always taken the view that one of the fundamental princi- ples of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of antiunion discrimination in respect of their employment—dismissal, transfer, downgrading, and other prejudicial measures—and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, to carry out their trade union functions in full independence, they must have the assurance they will not be victimized by virtue of their trade union office. Furthermore, the ILO considers that the existence of basic legislation forbidding acts of antitrade union discrimination is
(continued)
500 Part IV • The Labor Relations Process in Action
insufficient if such legislation is not accompanied by effective procedures ensuring its practical application. Thus, when a worker considers that he has been a victim of antitrade union practices, he should be able to appeal to a tribunal or to another authority independent of the parties.
The government responded that, based on the provisions of the prime minister’s circular pre- viously mentioned, the representatives of trade union organizations subjected to discrimination regarding their progression in their careers “may in particular defend themselves before administrative courts against . . . individual decisions prejudicial to the collective interests of public officials.” The union in this case did not appeal the decision of the ministry with the appropriate French court so this case should not be before the ILO Committee. The ILO Committee, although not bound by any rule that national procedures of redress must be exhausted before it will hear such complaints, will consider that a national remedy before an independent tribunal whose procedure offers appropriate protections, has not been pursued.
Source: Adapted from The Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees v. Government of France, Case No. 866, Report No. 168, International Labour Organization.
QUESTIONS
What are some of the reasons that the ILO does not defer to national procedures, such as U.S. courts defer to arbitration, before hearing a labor complaint?
If the practice of the Ministry of Industry had been to return loaned personnel on a routine basis, give some of the reasons why the union in this case would have believed Laganier was being discriminated against.
Expert Answer:
