Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 73, 1964

1. 13. The complaint of the Finnish Trade Union Federation (Suomen Ammattijärjesttö) (S.A.J.) is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 18 February 1963. This complaint was supported on 28 February 1963 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (I.C.F.T.U.), to which the S.A.J is affiliated.
2. 14. The complaint of the Finnish Trade Union Federation accompanied by the supporting communication from the I.C.F.T.U was transmitted to the Government of Finland by a letter from the Director-General dated 1 April 1963.
3. 15. In the absence of the observations expected from the Government, the Committee decided at its 34th Session, held at Geneva on 27 May 1963, to adjourn its examination of the case to its next session.
4. 16. This decision by the Committee, together with the text of a further communication dated 29 May 1963 from the complainants, was brought to the attention of the Government by a letter dated 12 June 1963. The Government replied by a communication dated 18 June 1963.
5. 17. Finland has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 18. The complainants allege that on 14 December 1962 the Ministry of Finance, which is in charge of governmental industrial relations, issued directives to all government departments to start negotiations with the workers' organisations most representative of employees in the service of the State, for the purpose of renewing the collective agreement, notice of whose termination had been given by the trade unions.
2. 19. In the implementation of these directives, the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Onni Koski, who is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Confederation of Finnish Trade Unions (S.A.K.), is said to have invited the representatives of trade unions affiliated to the S.A.K who are state employees to take part in the negotiations. This invitation is said to have been extended to the Seamen's Union, which is an affiliate of the Finnish Trade Union Federation (S.A.J.) and which covers workers on the ferry boats and dredgers owned by the State.
3. 20. When negotiations began, the President of the Seamen's Union is said to have requested that representatives of the Federation of Railwaymen's Unions and of the Steel and Machine Shop Workers' Union, both of which are affiliated to the S.A.J, should be invited to take part, as having members working in state-owned undertakings. It is stated that the representatives of these unions were refused permission to take part in the negotiations and were asked to leave the meeting. As a consequence, and in protest against this discriminatory attitude, the Seamen's Union is said also to have withdrawn.
4. 21. When it was confirmed that the Government had definitely decided not to negotiate with unions unaffiliated with the S.A.K, except for the Seamen's Union, the latter warned the authorities on 4 January 1963 that unless negotiations were started before 18 January with all unions having members employed by the State, the operations of the ice-breakers belonging to the State would be suspended in waters north of the port of Mäntyluoto.
5. 22. On 7 January 1963 the Seamen's Union was informed that authorisation had been obtained for negotiations on the conditions it had demanded. When the negotiations were about to resume, it was found that three national unions, all belonging to the S.A.J, were still being subjected to discrimination by not being authorised to take part.
6. 23. In these circumstances the Seamen's Union extended the blockade of the icebreakers to all Finnish ports and to all boats owned by the State as well as to municipal harbour ice-breakers.
7. 24. Such was the position when the complaint was filed. The complainants, in conclusion, declare that they consider that the attitude of the Government was in violation of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and in particular of Article 4. The complaint states : " While stopping of the infringement of right to organise and collective bargaining is most important for the trade union freedom, we kindly ask the International Labour Office to deal with this case as soon as possible."
8. 25. On 29 May 1963 the complaining organisation sent a letter to the Director-General informing him that it intended to withdraw its complaint. The reason given for this action was that the Government of Finland had nominated a representative of the S.A.J as adviser to the Finnish Workers' Delegation to the 47th Session of the International Labour Conference, an action that marked a departure from a policy of discrimination against the S.A.J.; the latter wished to withdraw its complaint so as to contribute on its side to the détente that seemed to be setting in on both sides.
9. 26. The Government for its part, recalling in a communication dated 18 June 1963 that the S.A.J had withdrawn its complaint, said that it considered that there was no need to make any observations in these circumstances.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 27. On previous occasions' when the Committee has been placed in a similar position it has expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, is not, however, in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The Committee has considered that it should be guided in this respect by the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to two representations submitted by the Madras Labour Union for Textile Workers and by the Société de bienfaisance des travailleurs de l'Ile Maurice in accordance with article 23 (now article 24) of the Constitution of the I.L.O. The Governing Body at that time established the principle that, from the moment a representation was submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it and that "the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well-founded". The Committee considers that, in implementing this principle, it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal is made in complete independence.
2. 28. The Committee has observed that cases might exist in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it would be a result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose, but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.