this file - Seafarers` Rights International

this file - Seafarers` Rights International

225th Eeport
Grabarczyk Antoni
Graniczko Leszek
Grela Wojciech
Gremhowski J6zef
Grochowski Julian
Grzetieluch Andrzej
Grzegocczyk Alina
Guca Zbigniew
Gulinski Zbignie«
Gunter Albrecht
Hag Mieczyslaw
Hanzlik Stanislaw
Hanusiak Hubert
Hancka Krzysztof
Hermanowicz Jan
Hinz Hariusz
Hofman Jerzy
Holutinka Jerzy
Honkisz Zdzis^faw
Horbacz Tadeusz
Hrybacz Jerzy
Hulek Stanislaw
Hytchel Stefan
Idzikowski Bogdan
Ikonowicz Piotr
Ilkiewicz Hincenty
Jablonski Jerzy
Jacknik Jerzy
Jakufcow S^awomir
Janas Józef
Jamroz Marian
Jamrozik Wojciech
Janiszewski Bichad
Jankowski Witold
Jankowski Krzysztof
Janowski-Burczyk Witold
Jarecki Józef
Jarzynski Jerzy
Jasicki Jacusz
Jasinski Haciej
Jasinski Hies^aw
Jaworski Dariusz
Jaworski Krzysztof
Jedrek Artur
Jedzejczyk Stanisjfaw
Jedryczka Grzegorz
Jewulski Eoles^aw
Jung Eegina
Juraszowska Janina
Jurzysta Eyszard
Jurkiewicz Jerzy
Juszczak Stanislaw
Juszkiewicz ludwik
Juskowiak Zdzis^aw
Kacprzak Zdzis^au
Kaczmarek Harlan
Kadzik ântoni
Kleba Józef
Kalita Jerzy
Gdansk
S«idnik
Krzeszowice
Jastrzetie
Augusto«
Katowice
Gryfin
Che^n
Bedzin
Gdansk
«arszawa
Krakow
Wroclaw
Zory
Gdynia
Gdansk
Walbrzych
Szczecin
Eielsko Biajia
Gorzów
Gorzów
Eobczyce
Czernin
jródz
Warszawa
Sroc^aw
Ostrowiec
Bielsko Bia^a
Krzeszowice
Teczynek
Piekary Slaskie
Gdansk
Ciechanów
Katowice
Gdynia
Tychy
Mcwy Sacz
Kcnin
Katowice
Bytom
Piastów
H^oc^awek
S^oc^awek
Katowice
Tczew
Tcrun
-
Gdansk
Lodz
Gdansk
GJrogów
Szyd^ow
Lodz
Poznan
Szczecin
Zdunska Wola
Szczecin
Szczecin
Lodz
7,5
3
1,5
3,5
l»
3
1,5
2
3
1
2 months
6
3
1
3
7
3,5
1
3
1
1
5
3
1
1,5
2
l*
1
2
2
U
5
1,5
3,5
5
3,5
«
1,5
4
3,5
1
1
3,5
1
8 months
3
3,5
3
1,5
3,5
1
U
1
3
3
1
5
5
1,5
2
3
3
2
2
6
:
2
3
2
1
1
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
it
2
139
Beports of the Committee on Freedom of Association
Kallas Makary
Kaminski Andrzej
Kaminski Zygmunt
Kania I.
Kaniewski Jerzy
Kapson Czes^aw
Kapusiewicz Antoni
Karabin Bart^Tomiej
Karga Jerzy
Karnicki Harek
Karolewski Hltold
Karpinski Jan
Karpiuk H^odzimierz
Karski Bogus^aw
Kasprzak Zdzis^aw
Kaszuba «itold
Kaszubowski Dariusz
Katulski andrzej Jan
Kawnik Adam
Kawulak Majrgorzata
Kazimierczuk Cesary
Kazimierczuk Krzysztof
Kazimor Wojciech
Kedziora Edward
Kepski J6zef
Kicinski Hac^aw
Kiepas Stefan
Kijek Tadeusz
Kister Henryk
Klassa Jan
Klesta Eugeniusz
Klimaszevski Hariusz
Klimiuk Andrzej
Kluczyk Marek
Kluzniak Ludwik
KJfyz Hojciech
Kochan W^adys^aw
Kochmaniewicz Piotr
Kolimuntoiiski Harian
Kokot Jacek
KolatoroHicz Dariusz
Kojtasa Hakary
Ko^odziejski Tadeusz
Kondracki Sylweriusz
Kopko Halina
Korzeniecki Andrzej
Kosiarski Pa«e¿
Kosmala Eyszard
Kosmowski Patrycjusz
Kostrzewa Byszard
Kowalczyk Jerzy
Kowalczyk Jerzy
Kowalczyk Zdzis^aw
Kowalewicz Renata
Kowalski Stanislaw
Koza Jacek
Kozian Jerzy
Koz^rowski Jan
Kramarczyk Adam
140
Eia^rogard
Bzeszów
Karszawa
Lublin
Warszawa
Bilgoraj
Katowice
Torun
lódz
Bydgoszcz
Szczecin
Katowice
Bia^ystok
Gdynia
Szczecin
Sarszawa
Gdansk
Lublin
Brzeszcze
Cieszyn
Sied Ice
Debno Lubuskie
-
Skomlin
Lublin
Gdansk
Stalowa Wola
Drzedów
Gdynia
Bochnia
Mys^akowice
BJoc^awek
Gdansk
Piaseczno
Krociraw
Przenysl
Ostrojreka
Chorzów
Wroclaw
Czestochowa
Staszów
Bia^cgard
K^odawa
Jelenia Gora
Przemysl
Bia^Tystok
0pat6w
Lodz
Bielsko Bia^a
L6äz
S^upsk
Gdansk
Pulawy
Wroclaw
Gdansk
-
Krcsno
Trzcianka
Krakow
it
5
2
2
3,5
2
5,5
1,5
1
1
1,5
4,5
1
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
2 months
4
3
3
3
U
4
1
1,5
3
2
3,5
4
1,5
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
5
1,5
1,5
2
4
1
6
4
3,5
9
2
3
1,5
4
1
3
3
2
2
4
2
3
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
t;
3
2
225th Report
Krasulski Leonard
Kraszewski Jadwiqa
Kraszewski lech
Krawczyk Birosjlaw
Kreciszevskl Jan
Kreciszewski Hojciech
Krotkowski Jerzy
Król Leszek
Kropiwnicki Jerzy
Kruczkowski Krzysztof
Krystian Eugeniusz
Kryszak Marek
Krzyzanski Andrzej
Ksiazczak Grzegorz
Kutasiewicz Ewa
Kubiak Jan
Kubiak Jan
Kubiak Micha;;
Kubiak Teresa
Kubsz Andrzej
KubisioHski Edward
Kucharczyk Jozef
Kucharski Ireneusz
Kucharski Janusz
Kudla Edward
Kula Irena
Kluczyk Harek
Kuligowski Janusz
Kunda Zygmunt
Kunkel Tadeusz
Kunat Janusz
Kupisiewicz Zbigniew
Kupsik Jerzy
Kurowski Hariusz
Kurtyn Maria
Kuta Stanislaw
Kuzian Jerzy
Kwiatkowska Sieslawa
Kwiatkowska Zofia
Kwiatkowski Zygmunt
Ladosz Zbignie«
Lariewski Jerzy
Landowski Eyszard
lasocki Wojciech
lassota Józef
Latocza Badoslaw
lebkowski Stanislaw
legut Jan
Lemanski Krzysztof
Lempicki Edward
Lempicki Eobert
Lepiarz Aleksander
Lesniak Zbigniew
Lesnicki Mariusz
leszczynski Roman
lewandowski Henryk
Lewandowski Zbigniew
Lewcun Jerzy
Lewicki Jerzy
Elblaq
Stocznia
Monki
Szczecin
Stocznia
Chelmza
Gorzow «Ikp.
Ustroba
16äz
Tcrun
Katowice
Warszawa
Konin
Tomaszow Mazow.
Gdynia
Jaworzno
Krakowie
Gcstynin
Torun
Czestochowa
Krakow
Bielsko Bia^a
16dz
Gdansk
Jastrzebie
Ezeszów
Piaseczno
Scsnowiec
Gdansk
Wroclaw
Katowice
Przezaierovo
Przemysl
Eilgorai
Tarnow
Sanok
Gdynia
Gdynia
Makoszyce
Warszawa
Krakow
Eaciborz
Gdansk
Knyszyn
Knyszyn
Krakow
»owy Sacz
«loclawek
Plotrkow Tryb.
Krakow
Glogow
Zakopane
Glogow
5
3 months
3
1,5
8 months
1,5
3,5
6
l(,5
1,5
3
1,5
3
«
10
2,5
2,5
1,5
1,5
2
3
4
3
5
2
3
2,5
3
3
2
2
5,5
6 months
1,5
1
6 months
1
5
5
3
1,5
3,5
4,5
3
1
3
6 months
3,5
6
1,5
1
3,5
3
1
U
3,5
1
6 months
1
3
3
2
3
a
2
5
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
U
141
Reports of the Cominittee on Freedom of Association
Lichota Tadeusz
Lipiec wieslaw
Lipinski Andrzej
Lipinski indrzej
lipinski Jerzy
Lipka Stefan
Lipniewicz Isabela
Lis Sorbert
LisoMski Kazimier'z
lomalewicz Benata
Lotocko Eadoslaw
ladosz Zbignisw
legowicz Krzysztof
Lopatka J6zef
Luczak Jan
Lukasik Stanislaw
Luniewski Janusz
Lotocki Zbigniew
Magiera Harian
Majaski Stanislaw
Hakar Arkadiusz
Barusinski Hojciech
Sagolan Zbigniew
Majsztub Piotr
Halenczyk Irena
Balinovska Halgorzata
Hikicki Janusz
Baliszewski Grzegorz
Bakarski Hlodzimierz
Haluchrik Kazimierz
Bajerski Stanisjfa«
Balinowski Andrzej
Balinowski Henryk
Hanko Brunon
Banowski Aleksander
Marcinek
Harczuk Hitcld
Bardak Jerzy
Barkowski Eazimierz
Marszalek Aleksander
Barszalek Hojciech
Bazur Franciszek
Bazur Piotr
Bazur WJrodziniierz
Mazurek J6zef
Hazurkiewicz Natalia
Benkarska Jadwiga
Micha^kiewicz Krzysztof
Bichalowski Blazy
Bietek Jan
Bikicki Jan
Biklejewski Eyszard
Mikojrajczyk Hitold
Bikojiajczyk Zbigniew
Milczanowski Andrzej
Bi^ek Jan
Hiszkiewicz Jar.
Bisztal Barek
Bittelstadt Piotr
142
Szczecin
Lublin
Gorzow wikp.
Piotrkow Tryb.
Lubin
Jelenia Gera
Gdynia
Gcrzow Slkp.
Gdansk
Gorzow «Ikp.
Kcnin
Torun
Bielsko Bia^a
Lodz
Jastrzebie
Dzierzoniow
Wroclaw
Czestochowa
-
Gdansk
Katowice
Glogow
Znin
Debno Lubuskie
-
S^awa
Lodz
Wroclaw
Czestochowa
Krosno
Gdansk
Bia^ystok
Gdansk
Piotrkow
Bzeszów
Gdansk
Hujek
Opole
Gdansk
Gdansk
Hielec
Hula Stalowa «cla
Debno Lubuskie
Karsznica
Wroclaw
Lodz
Lufclin
Dziezoniow
Nowa Huta
Slawa Slaska
Legnica
Inowroc^aw
Dabrowa Górnicza
Szczecin
Miechów
-
Ezeszów
Gdansk
3
1,5
3
3
2 months
1,5
3
3
1,5
3
3
1,5
3
5,5
3
2
1
1,5
3,5
5
U
7
3
1,5
it
6
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
it
2
3
3 months
2
2,5
«,5
3,5
3
5,5
2,5
3
3
6 months
1,5
2,5
3
3,5
i»
3
3
6,5
4,5
2
U
3
2
2,5
1,5
2,5
2
2
1,5
3
3,5
2,5
5
1,5
3
2
3
2
2
«
3
3
2
225th Eeport
Mogolan Zbigniew
HossakoHska Elzbieta
Hoscicki Jan
Botyka Tadeusz
Mosia Leon
Htozlnklewicz Bozena
Moszczak lomasz
Hr6z Boles^aw
Mróz Stanislaw
Mróz S^awoœir
Mrozek Kazimierz
Mucha Marian
Bûcha Eoiert
Hurawski Zbigniew
Myga Grzegorz
Kapiera^ia Piotr
Niedzwiedzki Teodor
Miegowski Hieromin
Niepsuj Leszek
Niermirski Haclaw
Hiewiadcmski Stefan
Niewiadomski H^odzimierz
Nitka Tadeusz
Nowacki irtur
Nowak Adam
Nowak Czesjraw
Nowak Edward
Nowak Eyszard
Nowak Zenon
Nowakowski Adam
Nowakowski Stefan
Nowicka Ewa
Nowicki Jerzy
Obere Adam
Oblicki Harcin
Obstarczyk Andrzej
Ochedzian Adam
Ochocki Andrzej
Ochwa^a Stanislaw
Ojdowska Maria
Okrój Jerzy
Oleksiewicz Jan
Olesinski Eugeniusz
Olko Krzysztof
Olszewski Andrzej
Olszewski Jacek
O^rka Krzysztof
Opas Marek
Opiel -Adam
Opitek Andrzej
Opitz Piotr
Opolski Artur
Orzechowski
Orze^; Jerzy
Osipow Andrzej
Ozarowski Wjîadys^aw
Pacuszko Tadeusz
Paczko Zdzis^faw
Pak Henryk
Glogow
Torun
Ciechanowiec
Zywiec
Howa Eude
Gizycko
Scpot
Olsztyn
Sosnica
Wroclaw
Wroclaw
Krakow
Bia^ystok
Czestochowa
«rocííaw
Legnica
Karszawa
Strzegom
-
Szczecin
Otretusy
Ncwy Sacz
Wroclaw
Gdynia
Gdansk
Krakow
Lemarczyce
Harszawa
Gdansk
Olsztyn
-
G^ogów
Iwonicz Zdrój
Harszawa
Oswiecim
Swiebodzin
Aleksandrów
Zarzecze
Torun
Gdansk
Knyszyn
Bcchnia
Warszawa
«roc^aw
Czestochowa
Warszawa
Gdansk
Gorzów Wielkopolski
Che^mek
Poznan
Tychy
»rociaw
Zegocice
Gdansk
«roc^aw
Harszawa
Zatrze
Gdansk
2
1,5
1
3
5
1,5
3,5
1,5
3
3
4
2
1
1,5
3
1,5
3
1
«,5
3 months
1,5
2,5
2
1
3
«.5
3,5
3
2
3
2,5
10 months
2
2
1,5
1,5
3
1,5
3,5
4
1,5
1
3
4
1,5
2,5
i*
3,5
a
a
3
3
3
3,5
4
3
2
3,5
2
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
143
Beports of the Committee on Freedom of Association
Pa^amor Zbigniew
Panasowiec Hieczys^aw
Paszkiewicz Janusz
Pater indrzej
Pator Ktzysztof
Patrowski Stanisjfaw
Pawlak Haciej
Pawlik Andrzej
Paw^rowski fiyszard
Piasecki Tadeusz
Piatek Henryk
Piechur Julian
Podlasiewicz Grzegorz
Piecki Andrzej
Pieprzyk Klemenz
Pietraszczyk Leszek
Pietrusa Jadwiga
Pietruszewski Stanislaw
Pietrzyk Grzegorz
Pilch Józef
Piotrowski Birosjiaw
Piras zbigniew
Piszczek HieczysJ!aw
Pitura Kazimierz
Piwonat Zbigniew
P^atek Stanisjraw
Plich Grzegorz
Podsiadlo Henryk
Podlasiewicz Grzegorz
Pomirksi Hiroslaw
Potasniczak Eyszard
Potega Bieslaw
Prochal Jerzy
Prokopowicz Janusz
Prymus Hojciech
Przew^rocki Zbigniew
Przybylski Bogdan Kazimierz
Przygpdzinski Stanisjfaw
Pszotka Aleksander
Pszczójíkowski Stanislaw
Ptak Harek
Ptaszczuk Benedykt
Puczyd^owski Jan
Pudlinski Marek
Pyzio WiesJ!aw
Eadkiewicz Wieslaw
Baba Jan
Eausz Hichal
Batkiewicz Wieslaw
Eakowski Krzysztof
Eadajewski Andrzej
Badomski Harek
Baszka Zygmunt
Eozik Zbigniew
Eos^an Jozef
Eosinski Jacek
Eosicki Hiiadyslaw
Bomanowski Jan
Eomaniuk Hlodzimierz
144
Katowice
Legnica
G^ogów
Wroclaw
lodz
Eaciborz
Sopot
Hrocklaw
Dabrowa Gornicza
Nowy Sacz
Ostrowiec
Bielsko Bia^a
Tarnow
Gdansk
-
Plekary SI.
Ciechocinek
Swidnik
Konin
Krakow
Jastrzebie
Gdansk
Wroclaw
Piekary Si.
Slupsk
Gdansk
Lodz
Bialoqard
Tarnow
Pclkowice
Gdansk
Zory
Hysoka
Legnica
Piotrkow Tryt.
Olsztyn
Glogow
Czestochowa
-
Gdansk
Czierzcnicw
Otryt
Gdansk
Przemysl
Andrychow
Gdansk
Brzeszcze
Czestochowa
Gdynia
Harszawa
Lebork
Myslakowice
Wroclaw
Ecleslawiec
Sieradz
Krakow
Katowice
Suwajrki
Olsztyn
,
5
3
1
1,5
3
1,5
3 months
5
4
4
1,5
3
1
5
1,5
3
3
3
3
1
2
1
4
3
4
4
2 months
4
1
3
6
1,5
6 months
1,5
3
4
1
5
5,5
4
4
3
5
3,5
3
3,5
3
4
3,5
3
3
3,5
2
3
4
3
5,5
1.5
3
5
2
2
5
4
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
6
4
3
225th Eeport
Eomaniewicz Janina
Eewinski Edward
Eennert Herbert
Bebisz Jolanta
Baczkowski Krzysztof
Haba Jan
Huninski Jerzy
Euœf Jan
Eubik Witold
Bozycki HJfodzimierz
Bowenczyn Harlan
Bzyskl Jan
Eydelin Eugeniusz
Eybarkiewicz Zbigniew
Eybarczyk Marek
Eybak Tadeusz
Eutowicz Hojciech
Sadowski Slawomir
Sadzik Alfred
Sa^tapa Zbigniew
Saniewski Jerzy
Sarna ândrzej
Sawicki Byszard
Schminejchel Wlodzimierz
Sekula Zdzislaw
Senkowski Zbigniew
Serafin Piotr
Siedlaczek Witold
Sienkiewicz Krzysztof
Siwinski Slawomir
Skibinski Jerzy Jozef
Skladanowski Aleksander
Skowronek Jaroslaw
Skrzypek Robert
Skwarczynski Harek
Skwira adam
Slawinski Jozef
Slabon Jozef
Slag Eyszard
Slawinski Tadeusz
Slomka Krzysztof
Slesicki H.
SJfowik Andrzei
Sliwinski Stanislaw
S^ruzalec Andrzej
Smaczny Henryk
Smyk Slawoœir
Smigiel Kazimierz
Sobczak Lech
Sobolewski Zbigniew
Sobierajska Krystyna
Sobiechowski Eoman
Sobel Helena
Sochowskl Eoman
Sokolnicki Harek
Soko^owski Jerzy
Soko^owski Boouald
Sosnowski Krzysztof
Sosnowski Zbigniew
Debno Lubuskie
Eytoai
Katowice
Wroclaw
Gdansk
Brzeszcze
Kutno
Eczbark
Katowice
Piotrkow Tryb.
Sanok
Tarnow
Sosnowiec
Lodz
Krakow
Ncwa Huta
Lodz
Gdynia
Kedzierzyoi
Hyslakowice
Pulawy
Krakow
Gcrzow
Brodnica
Walbrzych
Polkowice
Czestochowa
Tychy
Jaworzno
Glogow
Gdansk
Gdynia
Sieradz
Tarnowskie Gory
Siemianowice
Glogow
Karsznice
-
Teczynek
Krakow
Pila
Lodz
Warszawa
Warszawa
Bialystok
Lublin
Eielsko Biala
Gdansk
Katowice
Legnica
Glogow
Jastrzebie
Torun
Sarszawa
Szczecin
Suwalki
Gdansk
Walbrzych
a
5
5,5
1,5
1
3
1
U
6,5
3
3,5
3
1,5
1,5
1,5
3,5
3,5
5
2
2
3
3,5
H
1
1,5
2
1
3,5
t,5
3
1
5
5
3,5
3,5
3
1,5
1,5
4
1,5
1,5
2
6
3
3,5
3
2,5
5
t,5
6
3
3
5
3
1,5
3,5
3
3
3.5
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
5
1
2
2
3
3
2
H
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
a
2
3
2
3
2
3
a
3
3
3
1
105
Eeports of the Committee on Freedom of Association
Stachowicz Zdzislaw
Staniewska Teresa
Stanczyk Alicja
Stanczyk Hojciech
Starz Sygmunt
Stawicki Czeslaw
Stasiak Hiros^aw
Stasiowski Tadeusz
Stawicka Anna
Stawicki Grzegorz
Stawinska Anna
Steciuk Andrzej
Stefaniak Hlodzimierz
Strak Witold
Sttoczynski Miroslav
Struzynski Adam
Strzelczyk Zygmunt
Sulewski Eoman
Surowiec Cezary
Susfal Marian
Suszycki Eugeniusz
Swidzinski ladeusz
Svietlik Eyszard
Sychowski Hojciech
Szafran Janusz
Szajnoga Edward
Szakla Stanislaw
Szalka Andrzej
Szatkowski Jan
Szczepanski Andrzej
Szczucki Rafal
Szeja Piotr
Szelanga Eyszard
Szepietowski Janusz
Szewczyk
Szlerg Haclaw
Szmigiel Kazimierz
Sznetka Stanislaw
Szot Miroslaw
Szpryngwald Byszard
Sztetka Eyszard
Sztuczynski Grzegorz
Sztybel Jerzy
Szulc Andrzy
Szumski Pawel
Szwabowski Jan
Szwed Ewa
Szwed Wieslaw
Szymecki Eugeniusz
Szyndera Stanislaw
Sieg Eyszard
Snicwski Krzysztof
Switalski Zenon
Talaga Czeslaw
Talaska Wieslaw
Tenerowicz Janusz
Terlecki Jerzy
Theim Anna
Toczek Eyszard
146
Czestochowa
Walbrzych
Walbrzych
-
Wroclaw
Gcrzow Wlkp.
Ostrowiec
Gdansk
Wroclaw
Torun
Bytom
lodz
Czestochowa
Tychy
Bialystok
Gorzow Wlkp.
Gdansk
Slupsk
Ostrowiec
Dujlidv Gome
Krakow
Ezeszow
Gdansk
Ostrowiec
-
Gcstowice
Bialogard
Setropie
Gdansk
Miedzyrzecze
Tarnowskie Gory
Piekary Slaskie
Gizycko
Bielsko Biala
Eielsko Biala
Eielsko Biala
Gdynia
Warszawa
-
Lodz
-
Bialoqard
Krakow
Augustow
Augustow
Gdynia
Mszana Dolna
Tarnowskie Gory
Sosnowiec
Pclkowice
Krakow
Gdansk
lodz
leszno
Torun
Gdynia
10 months
3
2
2,5
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
«
3
4
7
1,5
3
3,5
1
1,5
1,5
3
3,5
7
1,5
1,5
1,5
2
3
1
3
3,5
a
3
6 months
5
5
4
3,5
3,5
3,5
6
2
8 months
3
2
3
3
5
1
«
1
3
3
3,5
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
a
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
2
4
3
H
2
3
3
1,5
5
2
225th Eeport
Tomzynska Halgorzata
Tcusinski Zdzislaw
Topolski indrzy
Trzaska Aleksander
Towiaruk
Trzcinski «ladyslaw
Tyton Ktzysztof
Uczklewicz Jerzy
Ogriczicz Marek
Ustasiak Mieczyslaw
Oszkiewicz Jerzy
Haliszewski Jcrzy
HaloNskl H.
Walus Wladyslaw
Warda Leonard
Wartak Jerzy
Hasklewlcz Tadeusz
Wasilewski Piotr
Hasilewicz Grzeqorz
Wawrzuta Adam
Wawrzynowicz Zbigniew
Hencel Zbigniew
Heglinska Anna
Heglowski-Krol Krzysztof
Sianecki Krzysztof
Hieczorek Eoman
Wielgosz Stanislaw
Hiec^awek Janusz
Wika-Czarnowski Wieslaw
Hilgucka Joanna
Bisznieski Andrzej
Hisniewski Andrzej
«isniewski Wojciech
Wisnie«ski Wojciech
Wisniowiecki Adam
Hitaszewski Wiesla«
Witczak Stanislaw
Hitkowski Krzysztof
«Jiodarczyk Krzysztof
Wlodkowski Jaroslaw
Bnuk Grazyna
Nlodkowski A.
Wojciechowski Boman
Wozniak Janusz
Hoznicka Anna
Sojcik A.
Hojewodzic E.
Hojtowicz Jan
Hojtas Morek
Wrona Andrzej
Hojtowicz Jan
Wronski Hichal
Wronski Stanislaw
Wyciechowski Bogdan
Hycichowski Haldemar
Zach Boman
Zagjarny Janusz
Zajac Rafal
Zalewskl Jerzy
Lodz
Wroclaw
Dabrowa Gornicza
-
Gdynia
Gdansk
Bcchnia
Gdansk
Szczecin
Bochnia
Broclaw
Gluszyca
Eielsko Biala
Tarnowskie Gory
Siemianowice
Torum
Starzyno
Wloclawek
Polkowice
Dzierzoniow
leszno
P^ock
Kowy Sacz
Tarnobrzeg
Polkowice
Gorlice
Dabrowa Gornicza
Gdansk
Gdansk
Wroclaw
Harszawa
Krakow
Sandomierz
Szczecin
Sieradz
Krakow
Howy Sacz
Koscian
-
Eytom
Warszawa
Lublin
Czestochowa
Ostrowiec
Lublin
Szczecin
-
Piotrkow Tryb.
-
Lublin
Lublin
Balbork
Hakop
Siemianowice
Elblaq
Gdansk
Ciechanowiec
1.5
3,5
3 months
5,5
3
9
3,5
3
2
D
3
1,5
1
i*
3,5
3,5
3
3
2
5
U
1,5
1,5
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
1,3
3
U
c
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
U
1,5
3
2
3
3
8 months
1
5 months
3
2
3,5
1,5
2 months
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
6
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
5
2
147
Eeports of the Committee on Freedom of Association
Zaniewski Krzysztof
Zaremba Robert
Zawadzki Janusz
Zawadzki Zdzislaw
Ziajski Janusz
Zielinski Jan
Zielinski Zbigniew
Zielinski leszek
Zietek Kazimierz
ZimOHski Mojciech
Zopisek Stanislaw
Zmota Jolar.ta
Zwata Andrzej
Zybik Kazimierz
Zolna Hubert
Zurawiecki Waldemar
ZoJ!yniak Leszek
Zywiec Janusz
Zyluk leszek
148
Glogow
Harszawa
Poniatowa
Gdansk
Ostrowiec
Gdansk
Bydgoszcz
Krakow
Bydgoszcz
Katowice
Tarnobrzeg
Leszno
Gdansk
Wroclaw
Polkowice
Bytom
Wroclaw
Krosno
Wroclaw
3
5
1
5
1,5
1,5
«
3
3
«
3
1
7
3
3
3
3
a
3
225th Eeport
ANNEX II
List of persons, who, according to the coniplainants,
were killed or died from injury inflicted by
the_forc€s_of order
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
J6zef Czekarski
killed
Krzysztof Giza
...? Kopacz
Zbigniew Wilk
Eoman Zajac
Eyszard idzik
Andrzej Pa^ka
flntoni Krzysztof
Borowczyk
Handa Ko^odziejczyk
died from injury
(59 y.)
F. Tyszko
Karol Batuszynski (25 y.)
«ojciech Cieslewicz
(29 y.)
Mieczys^aw Eokitowski
Stanislaw Kot
«ojciech Ciesielski
killed
(19 y.)
«¿adysjíaw Durda
died from injury
Andrzej ürbanowicz
Majfgorzata Lenartowicz
(20 y.)
Franciszek Eycerz (19 y.)
Mieczys^faw Badomski
(56 y.)
,Stansi!aw Szymanski
Piotr Majchrzak (19 y.) killed
Efflil Barchanski (17 y.)
Andrzej Trajkowski
Mieczysj;aw Pózniak
(25 y.)
Bichad Adaniowicz (22 y.)
Piotr Sadowski (22 y.)
Karzimierz Michalczyk
(27 y.)
Eugeniusz Hl^komirski
died from injury
Kaminski H.
killed
Bogdan W^osik (22 y.)
Stanislaw Królik (3S y.)
16.12.81
coal mine
"Sujek"
17,12.82
4.01.82
Gdansk
Harszawa
9.01.82
31.01.82
2.03.82
Wrocjran
Wrocjiati
Poznan
3.04.82
3.04. 62
2.04.82
5.05.82
Przejcysl
Bzeszów
Eia^a
Podlaska
Szczecin
Augusto«
Harszawa
13.05.82
05.82
Krakow
Narszawa
05.82
18.05.82
3.06.82
31.08.82-
Gdansk
Poznan
Varszawa
Lubin
Gdansk
Wroclaw
3.09-82
12.10.82
14.10.82
10.11.82
Czestochowa
Gdansk
Ncwa Huta
Warszawa
149
Reports of
the Article 24 Committee
C. 105, Nicaragua
Beport of the Committee set UP to examine the
presented by the International Organisation
under Article 21 of the Constitution alleging
of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention.
by Nicaragua>
representation
of Employers
non-otservance
1957 (Bo. 1C5)
1.
By a letter of 29 December 1981,z the International
Organisation of Employers made a representation, under Article 21» of
the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, alleging
non-observance by the Government of Nicaragua of the Abolition of
Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105).
2.
The Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No.
105), was ratified by Nicaragua on 31 October 1967. It came into
force in that country one year thereafter, on 31 October 1968.
3.
The provisions of the Constitution of the International
Labour Organisation concerning the submission of representations are
the following:
"Article 2H
In
the event of any representation being made to the
International Labour Office by an industrial
association
of
employers or of workers that any of the Hembers has failed to secure
in any respect the effective observance within its jurisdiction of
any Convention to which it is a party, the Governing Body may
communicate this representation to the government against which it
is made, and may irvite that government to make such statement on
the subject as it may think fit.
lxti6le_25
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from the
government in question, or if the statement when received is not
deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter shall
have the right to publish the representation and the statement, if
any, made in reply to it."
4.
The procedure for the submission of
1
Report approved by the Governing Body
(16-19 November 1982) .
2
at
representations
its
221st
is
Session
Appendix I.
153
Reports of the Article 2H Committee
governed by the revised Standing orders adopted by the Governing
Body at its 212th Session in Harch 1980.»
5.
Under Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2 of these Standing
Orders, the Director-General brought the representation and all the
items of information in his possession regarding its receivability
before the Governing Body.
6.
At its 219th Session (Harch 1982), the Governing Body
examined the question of the receivability of the representation and
considered that it fulfilled the formal conditions provided in
Article 2 of the Standing Orders. It then decided to appoint tjre
Committee provided for in Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Standing
Orders, in accordance with the recommendations of its
Officers in a
report submitted to it at that same session.2 This Committee
consisted of Mr. Niels Ole Andersen (GovernBent member, Denmark),
Chairman, Mr. Vicente Castellano Sabater (Employer member) and Mr.
Heribert Baier (Horker member).
7.
Immediately after being appointed, the Committee met in
Geneva on 5 March 1982. It decided under Article 4, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (a) of the Standing Orders: (a) to invite the ICE to
submit, before 30 April 1982, any additional information it wished
to bring to the attention of the Committee:
(b) to invite the
Government to submit its observations regarding the representation
before 30 April 1982, it being understood that any additional
information received from the ICE would also be communicated to the
Government.
8.
By a letter of 30 April 1982 the IOE indicated that it
had no additional information to add to the contents of its letter
of 2 9 December 1981.
9.
The Government submitted its observations
allegations in a communication of 4 May 1982.3
on
the
10.
The Committee noted that the allegations and
the
legislation disputed in the representation had already, following a
complaint concerning violation of freedom of association, been dealt
with by the findings and conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of
Association in its 216th Report,* which was examined ty the
Governing Body at its 219th Session.
11.
Between June and August 1982, informal consultations
took place between the members of the Committee and the Office.
During these consultations Mr. Castellano Sabater informed the
Office that he approved the substantive part of this report, fit
their meeting held on 8 November 1982, Mr. Andersen and Hr. Haier
adopted this report.
1
Ofilcial_Bjjlletin, Vol. LXIV, 1981, Series A, No. 1, pp. 93 to
95.
z GB.219/16/8 and GB.219/205, para. 71.
s Appendix II.
• GB.219/6/19.
154
C. 105, Nicaragua
Exanination of the representation
ang of the reply received
Aiiâ3àiAons
12.
The International Organisation of Employers alleges that
the Government of Nicaragua failed to fulfil the obligations
incumbent on it by virtue of its ratification of the Abolition of
Forced Labour Convention and, in particular, under Article 1(a).
13.
The IOE considers that the non-observance by Nicaragua
of its obligations is a result of the adoption on 20 July 1979 of
the Act respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and Security,1
the anendment on 9 August 1980 of section 4 of that Act,^ and the
sentencing by a Sicaraguan court on 29 October 1981 of a number of
executives of the Supreme Council of Private Enterprise in Nicaragua
(COSEP) to terms of detention and labour on public works' for
writing and publishing a letter addressed to the authorities of the
country, in which they expressed certain opinions conflicting with
the Government's social and economic policiers.*
The Government's observations
14.
In its communication of 4 May 1982 the Government
rejects the allegation that Nicaragua has violated the Abolition of
Forced labour Convention (No. 105), and states that the persons who
had received the prison sentences were sentenced not for their
position as executives of COSEP, but for endangering public security
and the national economy. The Government considers that this was
fully proven in the course of a regular judicial procedure, and that
the sentences were in no way passed as a means of coercion or as
punishment for holding or expressing political views or
for
ideological
opposition,
but
for endangering the established
government by violating the Act respecting the Maintenance of Public
Order and Security.
15.
The Government recalls that the COSEP executives were
freed on 15 February 1982 at the Government's reguest in order to
strengthen national unity against aggression; it stresses that at no
time during their imprisonment did they perform any form of
voluntary or forced labour.
16.
The Government adds that, in an opinion given at the
request of the Minister of labour, the Nicaraguan Supreme Court
indicated that the sentence of labour on public works provided for
in Article 4 of the Act respecting the Maintenance of Public Order
and Security has in practice always been inapplicable because the
manner and circumstances in which this sentence is to be carried out
> See the text of this Act in Appendix I, Annex 1.
2
Appendix I, Annex 2.
3
Appendix I, Annex 3.
• The text of this letter is appended to GB.219/6/19.
155
Reports of the Article 24 Committee
have not been defined or regulated by any legal provision, that this
sentence is not provided for in the Penal Code in force and has not
been included either in the revised text of section 53 of that Code
contained in Decree Ho. 644, adopted on 3 February 1981, subseguent
to the Act respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and security;
and that Article 13 of the Penal Code forbids any extensive
interpretation in criminal matters. The Court concludes that, in
view of the above, the use of any form of forced or compulsory
laíbour is excluded. For these reasons the Government considers that
the lOE's representation has no valid legal basis.
The Committee's conclusions
17.
The Committee notes that the guestions raised ty the
representation concern the compatibility between Article 1 (a) of the
Abolition of Forced labour Convention and the Act of 20 July 1979
respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and Security, the
amendment to section 4 of that Act made on 9 August 198C, and the
application of section 4, as amended, to the persons and acts
mentioned in the court decision of 29 October 1981.
18.
The Committee considers it useful firstly to recall the
scope of the international standard, account being taken also of the
relevant indications given by the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Becommendations.
19.
Article 1 (a)
Convention states that:
of
the
Abolition
of
Forced
labour
"Each Member of the International labour Organisation
which ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not
to make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour (a)
as a means of political coercion or education or as a
punishment for holding or expressing political views or
views
ideologically
opposed
to
the
established
political, social or economic system.o
20.
The Committee of Experts on
the
Application
of
Conventions and Recommendations has indicated that this provision of
the
Convention applies to any legislation providing for the
imposition of penalties involving compulsory labour in any form for
holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed
to the established political, social or economic system.1
21.
Several guestions have arisen in this connection.
As
regards the range of activities which must be protected against any
punishment involving forced or compulsory labour, the Committee of
Experts has stressed in particular that freedom to express political
or ideological opinions entails the freedom to express oneself
» See in particular: International Labour Conference, 65th
Session, 1979, Report III (Part 4B): Abolition of Forced labour.
General Survey by the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations, paras. 102 to 109,
156
C. 105, Nicaragua
through the press and other publications.»
As
regards
the
restrictions on those rights and liberties which must be accepted as
normal
guarantees against abuse, the Committee has ireferred to
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Eightsz and to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Bunan
Eights,3 which define those limitations which may be established in
law.
The Committee has taken account of similar criteria in
evaluating national legislation
and
practice
regarding
the
provisions of Article 1(a) of Convention No. 105.*
1
ibid., para. 133.
2
This Article reads as follows:
"Article 19
1.
Everyone shall have the
without interference.
right
to
hold
opinions
2.
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression;
this right shall include freedom to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form
of art or through any other media of his choice.
3.
The exercise of the rights provided for
in
paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and
responsibilities.
It may therefore be subject to certain
restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by
law and are necessary:
(a)
for respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b)
foç the protection of national security or of public
order {ordre_Bubliç), or of public health or morals."
' This article reads as follows:
"Article 29
1.
alone the
possible.
Everyone has duties to the community in which
free and full development of his personality is
2.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms,
everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are
determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due
recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others
and of meeting the just reguirements of morality, public crder
and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3.
These rights and freedoms
may in nö case be
exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations."
• See the General Survey of 1979
labour, para. 133.
on
the
abolition
of
forced
157
Reports of the article 24 Committee
22.
In addition to the limits within which it must be
exercised in normal circumstances, freedom of expression may also,
in exceptional periods, be subject to more general restrictions.
Noting that, "in time of public emergency which threatens the life
of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed".
Article U of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Eights recognises the possibility of exceptional recourse to such
action, the Committee of Experts has nevertheless stressed that
emergency measures which may have a bearing on the application of
Article 1(a) of the Convention of 1957 should be strictly limited in
nature and duration to what is necessary in order to cope with
circumstances which would endanger the existence or well-being of
the whole or part of the population.1
23.
In examining the compatibility of the Act of 20 July
1979 respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and Security with
Article 1 (a) of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, the
Committee considered that it was pointless to evaluate the legal
provisions which had been repealed in 1980.
It therefore limited
its analysis to the text of the Act, as amended in 1980, applied in
the judgement of 29 October 1981, and remaining in force.
The
relevant provisions of the Act are the following:
"Section 4. Any person committing any of th« following
offences shall be liable to detention ("arresto") involving
compulsory labour on public works for from ten days to two
years:
(c)
the dissemination verbally ot in writing of statements,
proclamations or manifestos intending to harm 1.
national security and integrity,
and the national economy;
public
security
2.
the defence of order and the prevention of
3.
the protection of the health, morals and dignity
of others and their reputation and rights;
t.
the authority and impartiality of the
crime;
judiciary."
24.
The Committee notes the information supplied by the
Government, in particular the opinion given by the Supreme Court
indicating that the sentencing to compulsory labour on public works,
as provided for in section 4 of the Act respecting the Maintenance
of Public Order and Security, is and remains inapplicable under the
system of law in force.
In these circumstances, the Committee
trusts that the Government will see no difficulty in formally
amending the provisions in question.
' See
in particular International labour Conference, 52Ea
Session, 1968, Report III (Part IV): Report of the Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Part
III: Forced Labour, para. 92, and 65th Session, 1979, Report III
(Part 4B): Abolition of Forced labour, para. 134.
158
C. 105, Nicaragua
25.
However, quite apart from the question of assignment to
compulsory labour on public works which the Government had submitted
to the Supreme Court, the Committee notes from sections 61 and 63 of
the Penal Code that the detention ("arresto") provided for in
section 4 of the Act in itself may involve an obligation to work at
a job which may be chosen from those practised within the penal
establishment: only those able to afford the cost of their upkeep
and detention are exempted from this obligation. The Committee must
observe that, even if those persons who were sentenced by the court
decision of 29 October 1981 have not been required to perform labour
during their detention, the legal provisions in force do not in
themselves seem to ensure the granting of a general exemption from
compulsory labour to persons convicted under section 4(c) of the Act
respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and Security.
in these
circumstances, the Committee must examine the bearing of the penal
provisions considered on the freedom to express political and
ideological opinions, protected in Article 1(a) of the Convention
against punishment involving compulsory labour.
26.
The Committee notes that section 4(c) of the Act
respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and Security covers
offences defined ir. terms that are so general that they are either
incompatible with Article 1(a) of the Convention - such as the
offence of "disseminating statements intended to harm the national
economy" - or might be interpreted in a manner incompatible with the
Convention, such as the offences of "disseminating statements
intended to harm public security" or "the defence of order". As the
Committee on Freedom of Association has observed, the danger of such
an extensive
interpretation
is
enhanced
by
the
judicial
classification of these types of offences in Nicaragua as offences
"of abstract danger", which may be committed without the action
resulting in any real damage to the juridically protected object.»
27.
The Committee further notes
that
the
government
authorities stated that the provisions in question were of a
temporary and exceptional nature and were adopted during a difficult
period of national reconstruction.^ However, even if these difficult
circumstances were considered likely to endanger the life or wellbeing of the whole or part of the population,* the Committee does
not consider on the basis of the elements at its disposal that these
circumstances justified the imposition of penalties
involving
compulsory
labour as a punishment for holding or expressing
political views.
28.
The Committee therefore considers that measures should
be taken to amend the legislation, in particular as regards section
4(c) of the Act respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and
Security, in order to ensure that the expression of political or
ideological opinions cannot give rise to the imposition of penalties
involving compulsory labour, and conseguently to
ensure
t^e
observance of Article 1(a) of Convention No. 105 both in law and in
practice.
> GB.219/6/19, para. 36.
z ibid.
* See para. 22 above.
159
Eeports of the Article 2t Committee
29.
As regards the penal conviction on 29 October 1981 of a
number of executives of the Supreme Council of Private Enterprise in
Nicaragua under section 4 (c) of the Act respecting the Maintenance
of Public Order and Security, the Committee considers that,
since
the persons concerned have already been freed without having been
required to perform compulsory labour, and whatever the bearing of
their penal conviction on freedom of opinion, this aspect of the
particular case does not call for comment under Convention No. 105.
The Committee', s „Recommendations
30.
(a)
(b)
The Committee recommends the Governing Body -
to approve this
conclusions:
report,
and
in
the
following
(i)
section 4 (c) of the Act respecting the Haintenance of
Public Order and Security provides for the imposition of
penalties involving compulsory labour for offences of
opinion defined in terms so general that some ^re
incompatible with Article 1 (a)
of the Convention and
others are at least capable of being interpreted in a
manner contrary to the Convention;
(ii)
measures should be taken to amend the legislation, in
particular as regards section 4(c) of the Act respecting
the Maintenance of Public Order and Security, to ensure
that the expression of political or ideological opinions
cannot give rise
to the imposition
of
sanctions
involving compulsory labour;
(iii)
the Government should inform the ILO of all measures
taken to this end, so as to enable the Committee of
Experts on
the
Application
of
Conventions
and
Recommendations to examine developments regarding this
aspect of the case;
(iv)
as regards the persons convicted under section 4(c)
of
the Act respecting the Maintenance of Public Order and
Security who have been freed without having
been
required to perform labour, their particular case does
not call for comment under Convention No. 105;
to declare the closure of the current procedure initiated
following a representation submitted by the International
Organisation of Employers concerning the application of the
Abolition of Forced labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) by the
Government of Nicaragua.
Geneva, 8 November 1982.
(signed)
P03;NT
FOB DECISION :
Paragraph 30.
160
particular
N.O. Andersen, Chairman,
H. Maier.
C. 105, Nicaragua
APPENDIX I
Communication dated 29 December 1981 to the Director-General of
the IIP from the International Organisation of Employers
(Translation)
yOBCED LABOOS - NICABAGÜA
The International Organisation of Employers (I0E) makes the
present representation to the International Labour Office by virtue
of the power conferred on it by Article 21 of the Constitution of
the ILO.
Accordingly, the ICE alleges that the Government of
Nicaragua, a Member of the 110 that has ratified Convention No. 105
concerning the abolition of forced labour, has not respected the
obligations devolving on it by virtue of the ratification of this
Convention, and in particular Article 1(a) thereof, which provides
that:
Article 1
Each Member of the International labour Organisation which
ratifies this Convention undertakes to suppress and not to
make use of any form of forced or compulsory labour (a)
as a means of political coercion or education or as a
punishment for holding or expressing political views or
views
ideologically
opposed
to
the
established
political, social or economic system.
The I0E considers that the failure of Nicaragua to respect its
obligations derives both from the adoption on 20 July 1979 of the
Act respecting the maintenance of order and public security and on
9 August 1980 of the amendment to section 4 of this Act and from the
judgement pronounced by a Nicaraguan court on 29 October 1981
against several leaders of the Council for Private Enterprise
(COSEP) sentencing them to imprisonment and labour on public works
for having written and published a letter addressed to the national
authorities expressing certain opinions in disagreement with the
social and economic policy of the Government.
The following texts are enclosed:
Act respecting the maintenance of order and
public
amendment of section ¡i of the Act respecting
of order and public security;
-
the
security;
maintenance
extracts from the ludgement pronounced on 29 October 1981
sentencing three leaders of the COSEP to prison sentences and
labour on public works.
Please accept. Sir, the expression of
my
highest
considera-
tion.
Eaphaël lagasse,
Secretary-General.
161
Reports of the Article 24 Conitittee
Annex 1
ACT RESPECTING THE MAISTENAMCE OF
OHDEB AMD PUBLIC SSCOEITÏ
Decree Ko.
THE GOVEENHENT COÜHCI1 FOE NATIONAL BECONSTBÜCTION
OF THE SEPÜB1IC OF NICABAGÜA
Shereas:
1.
It is essential to restore public order if we are to devote
ourselves to the great task of National Beconstruction, after the
grave crisis due to the otstinate attitude
of
the
Somoza
dictatorship;
2.
It is one of the primordial tasks of our people to put an end
to every trace of the Somoza dictatorship as a fundamental condition
for the re-establishment of order and the achievement of peace;
Decrees:
The following
public security;
¿£i
respecting
Section 1. The following shall be
for from 3 to 10 years:
the
maintenqace of order and
sentenced
to
imprisonment
(a)
persons, groups or armed bands belonging to the Somozan
movement that refuse to respect the cease-fire or persist in
the endeavour to reinstate the Somcza regime;
(b)
those who are guilty of acts intended to subject the nation
wholly or partly to foreign domination or to impair its
independence or integrity;
(c)
any person who discloses political or security
secrets
concerning the defence or foreign relations of the nation ;
(d)
any person who attempts to remove from office any of the local
authorities or prevent those who are legitimately appointed or
elected from taking up office. The same penalty shall apply
to
any
person
who attempts to prevent the unfettered
functioning of the authorities in accordance
with
the
administrative or legal provisions.
Section 2. The following shall be liable to imprisonment for
from 3 to 10 years: the authors, accomplices or su-ppcrters in
respect to the offence of sabotage against productive centres,
public service installations, works of infrastructure,
public or
private transport units or any other equipment or installation of
public or private utility.
162
C. 105, Nicaragua
Section 3. Any person committing any of thé following offences
shall be liable to Imprisonment for from 1 to U years:
(a)
acts of looting, pillaging, vandalism and total or
destruction of property whether public or private;
partial
(b)
games of chance, white-slave trade, traffic in
other activitj contrary to human dignity;
or
(c)
lending with a view to profit money or any other kind of value
outside the institutions authorised for the purpose.
drugs
any
Section 4. Any person committing any cf the following offences
shall be liable to labour on public works for from three months to
two years:
(a)
illegal possession of weapons, explosives, or other military
equipment,
whose use is the exclusive right of the duly
authorised bodies;
(b)
vagrancy, being
prostitution;
(c)
the dissemination verbally or by writing of statements,
proclamations or manifestos intended to harm the interests of
the people and destroy what has been achieved by it.
drunk
and
disorderly,
drug
addiction
and
Special provisions;
Section 5, section 6, and section 7 - repealed by
34, section 20-
Decree
No.
Transiticnal provisions:
Section 8 - repealed by section 2 of Decree No. 383 published
in í.a Gaceta. No. 95 of April 1980.
Section 9 - The present Act shall come into force today at the
moment of its publication by any means of mass communicaticn,
without prejudice to its later publication in the Diario Oficial.
Managua,
the twentieth day of July one thousand nine hundred
and seventy-nine - "Year of National Liberation".
GOVEENHEira COUNCIX OT NATIOHAI EECONSTEUCTION
Alfonso Bobelo C. - Sergio Earn irez M. - Moisés Hassan. - Violeta
Chamorro. - Daniel Ortega S.
de
163
Eeports of the Article 24 Committee
Annex 2
AHEHDHEST OF SECIIOM 4 OF THE ACT 5ESPECTIHG
THE MAIMTEHAKCE OF OBDEE AND PPBLIC SECDBITY
Decree No. 488
THE GOVEBNBENT COUNCIL OF NATIONAL 5EC0NSTEÜCTIOH
OF THE EEPCB1IC OF N3CAEÄG0A
In the exercise of its powers and by virtue of section 23 of
Decree No. 388 of 2 Hay 1980.
Informs the people of Nicaragua:
Single provision: That it approves the aoendments made by the
Council of State, at its Ordinary Session Number twelve of the
thirtieth day of July one thousand nine hundred and eighty, to the
Decree respecting the amendment of section four of Decree No. five
(5.) of the twentieth day of July one thousand nine hundred and
seventy-nine.
Section 1. Section 4 of Decree No. 5 of 20 July 197Ç,
published in La Gaceta. No. 1 of 22 August of the same year, shall
be amended to read as follows:
"Section 4. Any person committing any of the following
offences shall be liable to detention and labour on public works for
from ten days to two years:
"(a)
illegal possession of weapons, explosives and other military
equipment, whose use is the exclusive right of the duly
authorised bodies;
" (b)
vagrancy, being
prostitution;
" (c)
the dissemination verbally or by writing of
proclamations or manifestos intended to endanger:
statements,
1.
security and the national integrity, public
the national economy;
safety
2.
the maintenance of order and the prevention of crime;
3.
the protection of health, morals,
reputations and the rights of others;
4.
the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
drunk
and
disorderly,
dr(ig
addiction
human
and
and
dignity,
Section 2. The present Act shall come into force at the moment
of its publication by any means of mass communication, without
prejudice to its subsequent publication in La gaceta. Diario
Oficial.
164
C. 105, Nicaragua
Approved, Therefore: let
enforced and published.
this
be
a
law
of
the
Reputlic,
Done in the city of Managua this ninth day of the month of
August one thousand nine hundred and eighty - Tear
against
illiteracy.
GOVEENHENT C0DNCI1 FOE NATIONAL EECONSTEOCTICN
Sergio Sam irez Mercado. - Moisés Bassan Morales. - Daniel Ortega
Saavedra. - Arturo J. Cruz. - Safael Cordova Eivas.
165
Reports of the Article 2U Committee
Extracts from the -iudo^ment pronounced on
2? October j.981 sentencing three leaders of
tfyq COST¡¡V fco p;;j,spn sentences and laboor on public works
THEEE^QBE;
By virtue of the Charter of Bights and Guarantees of the
Nicaraguans, the Act respecting the maintenance of order and public
security, as amended. Decree No. 812 of 1981 and Decree No. 148 cf
1979 as amended, and all the legislation of the Eepublic of
Nicaragua, the undersigned judge
OEDEKS:
... Mr. Eli Altamirano Perez, Br. Enrigue Dreyfus Morales, Mr.
Allan Zanbrana Salmerón, Mr. Gilberto Isaias Cuadra Solorzanö, Hr.
Yamileth Bonilla Madrigal, Hr. Benjamin Lanzas Selva and Hr. Bobertc
Horeno Cajina to be sentenced to each of the following penalties:
(a) SIXTY (60) DAYS OF DETENTION AND LABOOE ON PUBLIC «OEKS, for
each of the offences of disseminating by writing statements and
manifestos endangering: 1, security and the national economy; and 2.
the maintenance of order and the prevention of crime; and (b) FOBTYFIVE {45) DAYS OF DETENTION AND LABOOP. OH PUBLIC WOBKS, for each of
the offences of disseminating by writing statements and manifestos
endangering: 1. human dignity; and 2. authority, punishable under
numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of clause (c) of section 4 of the Act
respecting the maintenance of order and public security, having been
charged by the public prosecutor, and thus each of the abovementioned offenders shall serve the sentence of TBO HUNDEFD AND IEH
(210) days of DETENTION AND LABOOE ON PUBLIC HOEKS, having been
found guilty of these offences ...
166
C. 105, Nicaragua
APPESDIX II
Coamunication dated 4 May 1982 to the International
labour Office by the Pernanent Mission of Sicaraoua
to the United Nations Office and the International
fltaaaAaaliafla
(Translation)
Kef. ON-GB-5-13
« Bay 1982
Sir,
I have the honour to refer to your letter AGD 19-01C of 9
March 1982 addressed to H.E. the Minister of External Affairs cf
Nicaragua, in connection with the representation presented by the
International Organisation of Eoployers (IOE) under article 2k cf
the Constitution of the International labour Organisation alleging
non-observance by our country of the Abolition of Forced labour
Convention, 1957 (No. 105).
The Governing Body, at its 219th Session froE 2 to 5 March
1982, appointed a special coœmittee, composed of Niels Ole Andersen,
Chairman and Government member of Denmark, Vicente Castellano
Sabater, Employers' member of Spain, and Heribert Maier, Kerkers*
»ember of Austria, to examine this representation.
The committee
decided to invite our Government for its observations on the
representation, in accordance with Article 5(a) and (b) of the
Standing Orders concerning the procedure for the examination of
representations.
Pursuant to instruction received from the Ministry of External
Affairs, I present below our observations concerning the case at
issue.
With
regard to the representation by the International
Organisation of Employers (I0E) alleging violation of Convention No.
105 by my country, the Government of Nicaragua rejects this
accusation since the persons sentenced were not convicted of being
leaders of the COSEP or members of the Communist Party, bat fcr
committing
offences against public security and the national
economy.
This was clearly demonstrated during their trial, which was
conducted in accordance with the requirements and formalities of
both statutory and procedural law, the proceedings having taken
place before the competent court exercising its jurisdictional
function in complete independence.
At no time was the sentence imposed on them as a Beans cf
coercion or punishment for holding or expressing certain opinions In
public or for manifesting ideological opposition; but for offences
coBBitted against the duly constituted Government by contravening
the provisions of the Act concerning Maintenance of Public Order and
Security.
167
Bepotts of the article 24 Committee
It is necessary to state that,
at tfye request of the
Government Junta of national Eeconstruction,
the leaders of the
COSEP «ere released on 15 February 1982, as a further proof of the
generosity of the Bevolution and its readiness to ensure national
unity against aggression.
It is essential to state that while they were under detention
the COSEP employers never performed any kind of labour, either
voluntary or forced, nor are the remaining prisoners doing so now.
H.E. the Minister of Labour of the Eepublic of Nicaragua,
Doctor Virgilio Godoy, reguested the Supreme Court of Justice of out
country for a legal opinion on the alleged violation of Convention
No. 105 and the inapplicability of the penalty of labour on public
works in Nicaragua;
the opinion given by the Supreme Court was
transmitted in a memorandum of 3 May 1982 by the Minister of labour
to the ILO for its consideration, which I transcribe beLow;
In giving a legal opinion, it is necessary to bear in mind:
(a)
the laws and decrees establishing the
public works;
penalty
(b)
the Penal Code in force establishing the
which the sentences are to be served.
form
of
and
labour
on
place
in
The penalty of labour on public works appears in our legal
system in section 4 of Decree Ho. 5 of 20 July 1979, the Act concerning the Maintenance of Public Order and Security, which provides
that such punishment shall be prescribed for criminal offences
specified in that section; however, no other law or provision was
enacted to define and regulate the form and conditions in which such
a sentence is to be served, since no provision therefor is made in
the Penal Code in force; conseguently, said penalty has at no time
been applicable in practice.
As you state in your reguest for an opinion, in accordance
with Decree No. 488 of 9 August 1980, which amended section 4 of the
aforesaid Decree, the penalty of detention ("arresto") and labour ^n
public works is prescribed for the above-mentioned criminal offences
without specifying or distinguishing the nature of the penalty cf
labour on public works, i.e. whether it would become an accessory
penalty by being combined with detention ("arresto"), therefore» the
initial situation remained unalterable, i.e. the establishment of a
pei^tv whiph in pr^q^ige was always inapplicable.
Subseguently, in Decree No.
644 of 3
amended section 53 Pn, the penalty of labour on
included as the main one either, and in view of
section 13 Pn prohibiting broad interpretations
cannot assume that the penalty may be an
moreover it is not defined as such).
February 1981, which
public works was not
the provisiens of
in penal matters, we
accessory one (since
Ço^^equentlv the qbove penalty is inapplicable in our country^
and the possibility of applying it has never existed and docs ngt
exist sines this youlfl require detailed. regalatiLons and logistlcgil
support that does not exist; accordingly, the proyisi,or.s of Article
1 of JLO^^oaventioii No. 105 of the IIP are not violated in these
circumstances, this court interpreting these provisions as requiring
the elimination of forced and compulsory labour and prohibiting its
use in any form.
168
C. 105, Nicaragua
The
basis of the allegation made by the International
Organisation of Employers is therefore invalid and devoid.
I take this opportunity to renew the assurances of my
consideration.
(signed)
highest
César Vega Masis
Ambassador
Alternate Permanent
Bepresentati ve
169
Reports of the Article 24 Committee
Report of the committee set up to examine the
representation presented by the Norwegian Federation
of Trade unions (LO) under article 24 of the
Constitution alleging non-observance of the
"Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958 (No. Ill) by Norway^
Introduction
1.
By a letter of 3 June 1982, the Norwegian Federation of
Trade Unions (LO) made a representation, under article 24 of the
Constitution of
the International Labour
Organisation,
alleging
non-observance by the Government of Norway of the Discrimination
(Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).
2.
The Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention,
1958 (No. Ill) was ratified by Norway on 24 September 1959.
It came
into force in that country one year thereafter, on 24 September 1960.
3.
The provisions of the Constitution of the International
Labour Organisation concerning the submission of representations are
the following;
Article 24
In the event of any representation being made to the
International Labour Office by an industrial association of
employers or of workers that any of the Members has failed to
secure in any respect the effective observance within its
jurisdiction of any Convention to which it is a party, the
Governing Body may communicate
this
representation
to
the
government against which it is made, and may invite
that
government to make such statement on the subject as it may think
fit.
Article 25
If no statement is received within a reasonable time from
the government in question, or if the statement when received is
not deemed to be satisfactory by the Governing Body, the latter
shall have the right to publish the representation and the
statement, if any, made in reply to it.
Report approved
(1-4 March 1983).
170
by
the
Governing
Body
at
its
222nd
Session
C. Ill, Norway
4.
The procedure for the submission of representations is
governed by the revised Standing Orders adopted by the Governing Body
at its 212th Session in March 1980.1
5.
Under article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, of these Standing
Orders, the Direcior-General brought the representation and all the
items of information in his possession regarding its receivability
before the Governing Body.
6.
At its 220th Session (May-June 1982) the Governing Body
examined the question of the receivability of the representation and
considered that it fulfilled the formal conditions provided in article
2 of the Standing Orders.
It then decided to appoint the Committee
provided for in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Standing Orders, in
accordance with the recommendations of its Officers in a report
submitted to it at that same session.
This Committee consisted of
Mr. Barry J. Watchorn (Government member, Australia), Chairman, Mr.
Albert Verschueren (Employer member) and Mr. Heribert Maier (Worker
member).
7.
Immediately after being appointed, the Committee met in
Geneva on 23 June 1982.
It decided under article 4, paragraph 1,
subparagraph (a), of the Standing Orders:
(a) to invite the LO to
submit, before 15 August 1982, any additional information it wished to
bring to the attention of the Committee;
(b) to invite the Government
to submit its observations regarding the representation before 31
August 1982, it being understood that any additional information
received from the LO would also be communicated to the Government.
8.
The Government submitted its observations on the allegations
in a communication of 1 October 1982.
Subsequently, the Committee
held further meetings in Geneva on 18 November 1982 and 22 February
1983.
Examination of the representation and of
the reply received
Allegations
9.
The Norwegian Federation of Trade unions (LO) alleges that
the Government of Norway has failed to fulfil the obligations
incumbent on it by virtue of its ratification of the Discrimination
1
Official
Bulletin,
Vol.
LXIV,
1981,
Series
A,
No.
1,
pp.
92-95.
2
GB.220/16/28.
171
Reports of the Article 24 Committee
(Employment
and
Occupation)
Convention,
1958
(No. Ill)
and
in
particular under Article 1, paragraph 2, which provides that any
distinctions, exclusions or preferences in respect of a particular job
based on the inherent requirements thereof, shall not be deemed to be
discrimination.
10. The LO considers that the non-observance by Norway of its
obligations is as a result of the amendment made to section 55A of the
Worker Protection and Working Environment Act (Act No. 4 of 4 February
1977) by Act No. 22 of 14 May 1982 which came into operation the same
day.
Section 55A now reads as follows;
The employers may not demand when advertising vacant situations
or
in
any
other
way,
that
applicants
supply
information
concerning their political religious or cultural views or whether
they are members of any labour organisations.
Neither may the
employer effect measures to obtain such information by other
means.
These
provisions
are
not
applicable
when
such
information is required owing to the nature of the situation or
where the activity of the employer, has as an objective, the
advancement of specific political, religious or cultural views
and the position is of significance for the accomplishment of the
objective.
In cases where such information is demanded, this
must be specified when advertising the position.
11.
In support of its claim that the Norwegian Government has
infringed Article 1, paragraph 2 of Convention No. Ill, the LO
maintains that the exception clause in section 55A gives the employer
the right to demand information regarding the applicant's beliefs and
attitudes to political, religious or cultural questions in situations
other than where such information is based on the nature of the
position.
12. The LO recalls that in the Parliamentary debate on the
amendments to the exceptions in section 55A, it was confirmed by both
the Government and a majority of the House that, for example, in
institutions with a Christian objective, the administration of such
institutions would have a right to demand information of applicants
regarding their Christian faith, even if the applications applied to
positions as cleaners, kitchen assistants, caretakers, etc.
13. The LO adds that such a form of discrimination in the case
of ordinary employees in ordinary positions is not only a clear
contravention of
Convention No.
Ill,
but
that
this
form
of
discrimination will, in practice, affect employees in major spheres of
their working lives.
In the view of the LO, the exception clause in
section 55A provides employers within all activities involving some
form of belief or the like, with a legal right to exclude all
employees who do not meet the demands as to the right belief or the
like, even if the positions referred to have no bearing whatsoever on
172
C. Ill, Norway
the accomplishment and/or
institution represents.
exercise
of
the
belief
the
activity
or
The Government's observations
14. In its communication of 1 October 1982 the Government
rejects the allegation that section 55A in Act No. 4 of 4 February
1977, latest amended by Act No. 22 of 14 May 1982, conflicts with
Article 1, paragraph 2 of Convention No. 111.
15. The Government states that Act No. 22 of 14 May 1982 was
introduced with the purpose of removing all reasonable doubt that,
among others, religious organisations should be able to carry on their
activities fully in accordance with their purposes.
According to the
Government's comments,
considerable disquiet among the Christian
organisations and institutions greeted both the interpretation of
section 55A as it was originally worded when the 1977 Act came into
force and the subsequent amendment of section 55A in 1980.
16. The Government points out that the attention given to
section 55A and the frequent amendments thereto should be viewed in
the light of the central position occupied by the voluntary religious
and cultural organisations in Norway and in the Norwegian democracy.
These organisations are involved in a number of fields - publishing of
books and newspapers and magazines,
study
programmes
and
camp
activities, information campaigns, child and youth work.
They are
also involved in running basic schools, vocational training schools,
peoples' colleges (folk high schools), hospitals, institutions for
care of alcoholics, kindergartens, orphanages, etc.
The Government
points
out
that as
part of
their
appointments
policy,
these
organisations employ both staff who share and staff who do not share
the organisations' ideology.
17. The Government asserts that at the preparatory stage and in
the actual formulation of the legislation, the Norwegian authorities
attached importance to maintaining compatibility with Convention No.
111.
In support of its contention that the legislation is consistent
with the prohibition of discrimination in Convention No. Ill, the
Government states that it is possible for an employer to obtain
information on an applicant's political, religious or cultural views
or membership of a trade union only when it is necessary in terms of
the inherent requirement of the job in question.
18. In this regard, the Government refers to the recommendation
from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Labour of 22 January 1982 Odelsting Bill No. 30 (1981-82) - to amend the Act of 4 February 1977
(No. 4):
173
Reports of the Article 24 Committee
In the first alternative the discretionary area in the
proposed exception clause is
linked
to
the more specific
limitations of the expression "nature of the post".
The
Ministry believes that this expression must be assessed in the
light of the establishment's general objective, which means that
the expression cannot be isolated from its context.
Generally
speaking, the same must also be true of the provision's second
alternative.
What is proposed here is that the exception clause
should apply if the objective of the establishment of the
employer concerned includes the promotion of certain political,
religious or cultural views and the post is relevant to the
attainment of the objective.
This means that the right to ask
about any applicant's political or religious views, etc., will
apply generally to the extent that the specific post is relevant
to
the attainment of
the establishment's
objective.
The
establishment's precise objective and aim will normally be common
knowledge
and
be
apparent
from
articles
of
association,
regulations, instructions, customary practice, etc.
The management (or board of directors) of the establishment
should itself appraise and decide what the objective of the
establishment is and whether a post is relevant to the attainment
of the objective.
The management (or board of directors) - or
the persons represented on such body - will be best acquainted
with the establishment from within and will know precisely which
duties in the establishment the individual post will involve.
Those persons will thus be the most appropriate and the best
qualified to assess whether the exception clause should apply.
In smaller organisations or institutions, e.g. those with 10 to
15 employees, the management (or board of directors) may, after a
specific assessment, regard all posts in the establishment as
relevant to the attainment of the establishment's objective.
It
will not, therefore, be possible to differentiate between the
different post categories, since it must normally be a primary
aim
of
all
employees
to
work
in
accordance
with
the
organisation's or the institution's objective and aims.
In
other establishments with a much larger workforce it will be
possible to affirm that a particular post, e.g. that of a
part-time kitchen assistant, is one which in concrete terms is
irrelevant to the attainment of the establishment's objective.
The Ministry sees no cause for closer examination of these
questions.
What has already been said is merely intended to
emphasise that the Bill cannot be understood to mean that all
posts in ideological organisations are covered by the proposed
exceptions without further assessment of the relevance of each
particular
post
to
the
attainment
of
the
establishment's
objective.
19. As an example of an organisation where the management might,
consider it neessary for all employees (teachers, matrons, caretakers,
174
C. Ill, Norway
administrative assistants, cooks, kitchen assistants and cleaning
assistants) to share the ideological beliefs of the institution, the
Government refers to a Christian folk high school where the pupils are
boarders.
The Government suggests that in such a situation it would
be important for the school to create a team which embodies unity and
totality in the endeavour to attain the school's goal.
The Committee's conclusions
20. The Committee notes
that the question raised by
the
representation concerns the compatibility between Article 1, paragraph
2 of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
(No. Ill) and Act No. 22 of 14 May 1982 concerning amendments to
section 55A in the Act of 4 February 1977 (No. 4) relating to worker
protection and working environment.
21. The Committee considers it useful firstly to recall the
scope of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Convention, account being taken
also of the relevant indications given in the preparatory work on the
Convention and by the Committee of Experts on the Application of
Conventions and Recommendations.
Article 1, paragraph 2 of the
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention states:
Any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a
particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall
not be deemed to be discrimination.
22. In the work preparatory to the adoption of the
1958
instruments, some amendments were submitted with the purpose of making
it^- "clear that distinctions determined by the inherent requirement
of the job were not to be considered as adverse discrimination...
Their purpose was to cover cases where, to match the needs of the job,
an employer justifiably took into consideration factors such as
national extraction,
sex or religion".
At the same time
the
Conference Committee rejected a subamendment,
submitted by
the
Employers' members, to insert after the words "inherent requirements
of the job", the words "or the particular circumstances under which
the job is being performed".
23. The Committee of Experts explained the meaning of Article 1,
paragraph 2 of the Convention in a general survey of 1963^ by
ILO;
Record of Proceedings, International Labour Conference,
40th Session, Geneva, 1957 (Geneva, 1958), Appendix X:
Report of the
Committee on Discrimination, para. 25, p. 743).
^ ILO :
Report of the Committee of Experts on the Applications
of Conventions and Recommendations, ReportÏTÏ (IV), International
Labour Conference, 47th Session, Geneva, 1963, p. 191.
175
Reports of the Article 24 Committee
stating that "... it is a question of determining in which cases a
criterion such as race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion or
social origin might justifiably be taken as an inherent requirement of
a particular job, thereby not giving rise to discrimination within the
meaning of the Convention and the Recommendation.
It is indeed only
in such cases that, in considering the inherent requirements of a job,
the problem arises of where to draw the line between what is and what
is not discriminatory.
It is clear from the preparatory work on the
Convention that it was indeed to meet such cases that the provision in
question was included in the instrument".
24. On the question of specific exclusions which could come
within the scope of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the
Committee of Experts stated that it was aware, for example, that
"political opinions may be taken into account in connection with the
requirements of certain senior administrative posts involving special
responsibility in the implementation of government policy, but that if
it were carried beyond certain limits, this practice could involve a
conflict with the provisions of the Convent ion". •'•
25. In considering the compatibility of the exception clause in
section 55A with Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the
Committee notes the Government's assertion that the "question whether
the Act leads in practice to results which are in conflict with the
Convention will only ... be confirmed after a concrete interpretation
in a specific case."
26. The Committee further notes, however, that the Government
has already given some indication of the way in which section 55A may
be implemented.
In the general text of the Government's comments on
the representation and in the recommendation from the Ministry of
Municipal
Affairs
and
Labour
to
the
Odelsting,
a
number
of
circumstances
are cited where applicants
for all posts
in an
institution might
be
asked
justifiably
about
their
political,
religious or cultural views.
The Government emphasises that such
posts could not come within the exception clause in section 55A
though, without there having been a detailed assessment of the
importance of the specific post for the accomplishment of the
undertaking's purpose.
27. In this respect, the Committee notes that the criterion to
be employed by an institution in assessing whether a position is an
"ideological" one or not, is the significance or importance of the job
to the purpose of the undertaking.
In the examples posed by the
Government as
to how section 55A could be interpreted in some
institutions (see paragraph 19 above), the question of significance of
the job for the organisation's objective is given a very broad
scope.
It would appear to the Committee that the element of
"significance" of some posts relates to the actual functioning of the
organisation rather than to the accomplishment of its objectives.
The Committee considers that, as stated here, the test to be applied
176
C. Ill, Norway
by the institution goes beyond that which can be applied under Article
1, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
In the view of the Committee, the
original wording of section 55A introduced in 1977, which forms the
first alternative exception in the present draft of section 55A, viz.
"These provisions are not applicable when such information is required
owing to the nature of the post" is consistent with Article 1,
paragraph 2 of the Convention.
Indeed, the interpretation of section
55A provided in the Storting on 1 March 1978 by the then Minister of
Local Government and Labour accords with the interpretation to be
given to Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
The Minister said
in regard to advertisements for Christian kindergarten and private
school teachers that "information on one's views on life, etc., could
only be required of personnel who are to teach the philosophy of life
in question".
28.
However, the Committee has had an opportunity to examine a
case concerning the practical application of the 1977 version of
section 55A.
The case concerned legal action brought by, amongst
others, the Norwegian Union of Civil Service Employees against the
Board of a Christian College for the training of social workers
(Diasos), on the grounds that the personnel policy guidelines adopted
in 1979 by the board of directors of the College were not in
accordance with section 55A of the Working Environment Act, 1977.
The policy guidelines in question provided that applicants for posts
as administrative director, as teachers or as research workers must be
asked whether they shared the Christian faith, and that their attitude
to the Christian faith should be amongst the factors to be taken into
account in the filling of the posts in question.
Considering, inter
alia, that it was difficult to conceive of a Christian school in which
the majority of teachers did not share basic Christian beliefs, the
Oslo District Court held that - except as regards the post of
administrative director - the policy guidelines in question did not
contravene either section 55A of the Working Environment Act or
Convention No. 111.
The Committee is not faced with the task of
commenting on the outcome of this case except that the judgment is
instructive in indicating the way in which section 55A has been
applied in practice.
In this connection, it appears that the Court
has accepted that job applicants may be questioned about their
religious views even where the positions for which they are applying
are secular positions in an institution with a particular religious
view.
The examples provided by the Government as to how it would
envisage the present draft of section 55A being interpreted, and the
Oslo District Court's interpretation of the 1977 draft of section 55A
seem to the Committee to indicate that exceptions could be permitted
to the general prohibition of discrimination in employment which could
be wider than those permitted by the Convention.
The Committee would
1
loc. cit., p. 192.
177
Reports of the Article 24 Committee
also express concern as to whether such indications might at some time
develop into practices which are contrary to Article 2 of the
Convention, which calls on ratifying member States to "... pursue a
national policy designed to promote ... equality of opportunity and
treatment ... with a view to eliminating any discrimination ...".
This concern is relevant particularly to educational institutions
which are faced with a primary task of preparing students for
employment.
Where educational institutions themselves give an undue
emphasis to religious beliefs in their staffing policy, the greater
may become the tendency of a society to evolve discriminatory
employment practices.
29. The Committee considers that in order to satisfy Article 1,
paragraph 2 of Convention No. Ill, regard must be had to the actual
duties of the job in question and when necessary, to the direct
bearing of these duties on the institution's objectives.
Naturally,
the fact that an organisation has a particular ideology will be a
reason for it to require that certain posts should be held by persons
of that same ideology.
In order to maintain consistency with the
Convention, however,
the responsibilities of such posts must be
related directly to the pursuance or furtherance of the institution's
objective.
As a corollary, the Committee would suggest that in
certain organisations, a consideration of the "inherent requirements
of the job" may involve such questions as whether there would be a
risk that the pursuit of the institution's objective would be
frustrated, undermined or harmed by employing someone in a particular
post who did not share the ideological views of the organisation.
It
is clear from the views expressed by the Committee of Experts,
however, that distinctions made in these circumstances could only be
justified under the Convention where the job itself carried special
responsibilities.
30. The
Committee
notes
the
Government's
statement
that
ideological organisations in Norway employ persons who share and
persons who do not share the organisation's view of life, and both the
Government and the majority in the Standing Committee of the Storting
are confident that these organisations will continue this recruitment
policy.
The Committee is nevertheless concerned to clarify the
precise scope of the Convention.
31. The Committee notes the Government's assurance that Norway's
international legal commitments are given great weight in interpreting
the legislation;
and that the enforcing authorities and the courts of
law will consequently attach due importance to the ILO Convention when
applying the exception clause in section 55A in an individual case.
Further, the Government maintains that the Act will be interpreted in
accordance with Convention No. Ill in case of doubt.
The Committee's recommendations
32.
m
The Committee recommends the Governing Body -
C. Ill, Norway
(a)
(b)
to approve
conclusions;
this
report,
and
in
particular
the
following
(i)
In determining any distinctions, exclusions or preferences
as permitted under Article 1, paragraph 2, of Convention No.
Ill, regard must be had only to the inherent requirements of
a given job, i.e. to the actual duties of the job in
question and, when necessary, to the direct bearing of these
duties on the institution's objectives.
In its present
wording. Act No. 22 of 1982 which amends section 55A of the
Worker Protection and Working Environment Act (Act No. 4 of
4 February 1977) appears to be drafted in such a way that
its exception clause could be applied in respect of jobs
that do not by their nature carry with them a special
responsibility to contribute to the attainment of the
institution's objectives;
(ii)
in these circumstances, measures should be taken to ensure
that the section in question is worded, interpreted and
applied in such a manner as to be in conformity with Article
1, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
(iii)
the Government should inform the ILO of all measures taken
to this end, so as to enable the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations to follow
developments regarding this aspect of the case;
(iv)
the Government should also indicate in its reports on the
application of Convention No. Ill, the manner in which the
legislation is being implemented, and should include in its
reports, copies of any relevant administrative instructions
or court decisions pertinent to the matter;
to declare the closure of the current procedure initiated
following a representation submitted by the Norwegian Federation
of
Trade
Unions
(LO)
concerning
the
application
of
the
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No.
Ill) by the Government of Norway.
Geneva, 22 February 1983.
(Signed) B.J. Watchorn, Chairman.
A. Verschueren.
H. Maier.
POINT FOR DECISION:
Paragraph 32.
179
ISSN 0378-5890
r
i
' INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OF] ic5 E C E I V E D
1 7 JAU 1384
I
Inteönational
Labour Oifice
OFFICIAL BULtlW
Series B, No. 2
Vol. LXVI, 1983
Reports of the Committee on Freedom of Association
(226th, 227th, 228th and 229th report)
226th EEPOET
Introduction
-...-
Cases in which the Committee has reached
definitive cor.clusions
Case No. 1118 (Dominican Republic): Complaint
presented by the National Trade Union of
Telephone Workers against the Government of
the Dominican Eepuhlic
Paragraphs
Pages
1-31
1-10
32-68
10-18
32-it6
10-13
A.
Previous examination of the case
35-36
1C
E.
New allegations
37-38
11
C.
The Government's reply
39-42
11-12
D.
The Committee's conclusions
«3-«6
12-13
The Committee's recommendations
47
13
48-55
14-15
Case No. 1138 (Peru): Complaint presented by
the Federation of Municipal Horkers of Peru
against the Government of Peru
A.
The complainant's allegations ..........
50
14
B.
The Government's reply
51
14
C.
The Committee's conclusions
52-55
15
The Committee's recommendations
56
15
57-67
16-17
Case No. 1167 (Greece): Complaint presented
by the Par.-Hellenic Union of Merchant Marine
Mechanics against the Government of Greece .
ragrai hs
A.
Pages
Alleqations of the complainant
organisation
59-61
16
B.
The Government's reply
62-6«
16-17
C.
The Committee's conclusions
65-67
17
68
16
Cases in which the Committee requests to be kept
informed of developments
,
69-90
18-23
Case So. 1069 (India): Complaint presented by
the Centre of Indian Trade Unions aqainst
the Government of India
69-80
18-21
Previous examination of the case
Further developments .....................
The Committee's conclusicas ............
71
72-77
78-80
19
19-2C
20-21
Eecommendations of the Committee .............
81
21
Case No. 1100 (India): Complaint presented by
the All India Trade Union Congress, the
Centre of Indian Trade Unions and several
other trade union organisations aqainst the
Government of India
82-89
22-23
81»
22
Eecommendations of the Committee
i.
B.
C.
A.
Previous examination of the case .......
B.
The Government's reply
85-86
22
C.
The conclusions of the Committee .......
87-89
23
Eecommendations of the Committee ............
90
23
Cases in which the Committee has reached
interim conclusions
Cases Nos. 953, 973, 987 and 1016
(El Salvador): Complaints presented by
several trade union organisations aqainst
the Government of El Salvador
91-403
2«-97
91-109
2«-27
93-97
2«
98-101
25
Case No. 987 .... ^
102-105
26
Case No. 1016
106-1O9
26-27
110
27
111-122
28-30
A.
Case Ho. 953
P.
Case No. 973
C.
D.
,.
The Committee's recommendations ............
Case No. 1150 (El Salvador): Complaint
presented by the Trade unions International
of Transport Workers against the Government
of El Salvador ..
,
Paragraphs
A.
Previous examinatioii of the case .......
1
Eages
113-11U
28
B.
The Govern ment s reply ..................
115
26
C.
Further allegations ......................
116
29
D.
The Committee's conclusions
117-122
29-30
The Committee's recommendations ............
123
30
Case No. 116 8 (El Salvador): Complaint
presented by the World Federation of Trade
Unions against the Government of El Salvador
12U-130
30-31
126
31
A.
Allegations of the complainant .......%.
B.
Eeply of the Government
127-128
31
C.
The Committee's conclusions
129-130
31
The Committee's recommendations
131
32
132-139
32-34
Case No. 963 (Grenada): Complaint presented
by the World Confederation of labour against
the Government of Grenada
A.
Previous examinations of the case ......
13U-136
33
B.
Further developments
137-138
3<4
C.
The Committee's conclusions
139
31
140
34
141-152
35-37
The Committee's recommendations .............
Cases Nos. 1098 and 1132 (Uruguay):
Complaints presented by the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the
World Federation of Trade Onions, the
National Workers' Convention of Uruguay and
the Permanent Congress of Trade Union Unity
of latin American Workers against the
Government of Uruguay
A.
Previous examination of the case
144
35
B.
Further developments
145
36
C.
The Government's reply
146-148
36
D.
The Committee's conclusions .............
149-152
37
153
38
154-179
40-47
The Committee's recommendations
Case No. 1153 (Uruguay): Complaints presented
by the Horld Federation of Trade Onions, the
National Convention of Workers of Uruguay,
the International Confederation of Free
Trade Unions and the World Confederation of
labour against the Government of Uruguay ...
iii
Paragraphs
lages
A.
The complainant's allegations
157-161
U1-H2
B.
The Government's reply
162-168
<t3-«U
C.
The Committee's conclusions
169-179
i(5-it7
The Committee's recommendations
18C
47
181-190
4 8-50
Case No. 1110 (Thailand): Comflaint presented
by the World Confederation of labour against
the Government of Thailand .................
A.
The complainant's allegations ..........
183-185
49
B.
The Government's reply
186-187
49-5C
C.
The Committee's conclusions .............
188-190
50
191
5C
192-203
51-54
The Committee's recommendations
Case No. 1113 (India): Complaint presented
by the All India loco Running Staff
Association and the Trade Onions International of Transport Workers (TOI-Transport
WFTü) against the Government of India ......
A.
Previous examination of the case .......
19t
51
E.
Further developments ....................
195-199
52-53
C.
Conclusions of the Committee ......*....
200-203
53-54
20U
54
205-228
£5-60
The Committee's recommendations
Case No. 1135 (Ghana): Complaints presented
by the International Confederation of Free
Trade Onions, the Organisation of African
Trade Onion unity and various other trade
union organisations against the Government
cf Ghana
A.
Previous examination of the case
208-213
55-57
B.
Further developments
21U-222
57-59
C.
The Committee's conclusions ...............
223-228
59-60
229
60
230-272
€2-69
Eecommendations of the Committee
Case No. 1139 (Jordan): Complaints presented
by the World Federation of Trade Onions and
the General Federation of Jordanian Trade
Onions (Damascus) against the Government of
Jordan
A.
Eeceivability of the complaint ..........
232-235
62-63
B.
The complainants' allegations
236-252
63-65
Paragraphs
Fages
C.
The Government's reply
253-262
65-67
D.
The -Committee's conclusions
263-272
67-69
The Committee's recommendations
273
69
274-292
70-73
Case No. lito (Colombia): Complaint presented
by the Workers' Trade Union Confederation of
Colombia against the Government of Colombia
A.
The complainant's allegations
276-277
7C
B.
The Government's reply
278-284
71-72
C.
The Committee's conclusions
285-292
72-73
The Committee's recommendations
293
73
29U-301
7tt-76
Case No. 1157 (Philippines): Complaint
presented by the World Federation of Trade
Unions against the Government of the
Philippines
A.
Previous examination of the case .......
296-297
75
B.
Further developments
298-299
75
C.
The Committee's conclusions ............
300-301
76
302
76
303-322
76-79
306-312
77-78
The Committee's recommendations
Case No- 1158 (Jamaica): Complaint submitted
by the Union of Schools, Agricultural and
Allied Workers against the Government of
Jamaica
A.
The complainant's allegations
-
B.
The Government's reply
313-311
78
C.
The Committee's conclusions
315-322
78-79
The Committee's recommendations .............
323
80
Case No. 1166 (Honduras); Complaint presented
by the World Confederation of Organisations
of the Teaching Profession against' the
Government of Honduras
32ft-3«6
80-85
A.
The complainants« allegations
326-331
81-82
B.
The Government's reply
332-339
82-83
C.
The Committee's conclusions
3'>0-3«6
84-85
347
86
The recommendations of the Committee .......
Case No. 1170 (Chile): Complaints presented
by the International Confederation of Tree
Trade Onions, the World Federation of Trade
Onions, the World Confederation of Labour,
the Permanent Congress of Trade Union Unity
of Latin American Workers and several
national organisations against the Government of Chile
Paragraphs
Pages
3ae-386
87-93
A.
The complainants' allegations
351-368
67-ÇC
B.
The Government's reply ....¿
369-378
ÇC-Ç1
C.
The Committee's conclusions ............
379-386
Sl-93
The Committee's recoamendations ¿...........
387
93
Case No. 1181 (Peru): Complaint presented by
the National Trade Union of Workers of the
Banco de la Nación against the Government of
Peru
388-«02
9«-97
Ä.
The complainant's allegations
390-391»
9i»-95
B.
The Government's reply
395-398
95-96
C.
The Committee's conclusions
399-H02
96-97
The Committee's recommendations
UC3
97
227th EEPOET
Introduction
1-4
98
Case No. 842
Complaints presented by the World Federation
of Trade Unions, the World Confederation of
Labour, the International Confederation of
Free Trade Onions and other workers' organisations against the Government of Argentina
Complaint concerning the observance by
Argentina of the Freedom of Association and
Protection of the Eight to Organise
Convention, 19U8 (No. 87), presented by a
number of delegates to the 63rd (1977) Session
of the International labour Conference under
article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO
A.
Previous examination of the case
B.
The Government's reply
C.
The Committee's conclusions ..............
The recommendations of the Committee
5-19
8
99-1C3
99
9-14
1CC-1C2
15-18
102
19
1C3