Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 157, Junio 1976

42. The Committee examined this case in May 1975 and presented to the Governing Body at that session an interim report which is reproduced in paragraphs 148 to 158 of its 151st Report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 196th Session (May 1975).

1. 42. The Committee examined this case in May 1975 and presented to the Governing Body at that session an interim report which is reproduced in paragraphs 148 to 158 of its 151st Report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 196th Session (May 1975).
2. 43. Liberia has ratified 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. 44. The complainants stated that Mr. Femore Dorley, a Liberian citizen, had occupied for seven years the post of chauffeur to the Ambassador of the Liberian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva. When he arrived in Geneva, Mr. Dorley became a member of the newly formed Association of Diplomatic Mission Drivers which, on 8 August 1973, addressed to the Ambassador a claim, on behalf of Mr. Dorley, for an increase in his salary. The complainant union indicated that if the claim was not met another and better paid job would have to be found for Mr. Dorley. The complainants transmitted photocopies of their letter to the Ambassador and of his reply, dated 16 August 1973, in which he stated that the claim could not be met, but that if Mr. Dorley was dissatisfied he was free to find employment elsewhere. The complainants had also transmitted a photocopy of a letter dated 14 August 1973, addressed to the complainant union by Mr. Dorley, in which he stated that he was dissatisfied with his employer and requested the union to assist him in finding another post. The complainants also transmitted a photocopy of a further letter, dated 20 August 1973, addressed by the complainant union to the Ambassador in which they intimated that Mr. Dorley would leave his job on 30 September 1973 and that the union would undertake to find him another position.
2. 45. The complainants added that Mr. Dorley, after having his salary increased from 825 francs to 1,300 francs per month, had been dismissed by the Liberian Mission in February 1974. Another post was found for Mr. Dorley with the Permanent Mission of Sudan, but, according to the complainants, he was shortly thereafter dismissed following an intervention by the Ambassador of Liberia. On 13 February 1974 the complainants were invited to the Liberian Mission to discuss the case of Mr. Dorley and in the course of the meeting the Ambassador stated that he would arrange for Mr. Dorley to leave Switzerland. The Ambassador had also informed them that Mr. Dorley's work was satisfactory but that he had started to make claims and wanted payment for Sundays, and, in addition, Mr. Dorley's membership of the complainant union was not welcome. This was followed by a formal order by the Ambassador addressed to Mr. Dorley on 13 March 1974 to present himself at Geneva Airport three days later and board a plane scheduled for departure to Monrovia. Mr. Dorley was also informed that his passport was no longer valid, except for travel to Monrovia, and that the Liberian Government had been informed of his impending departure for Monrovia. A photocopy of this communication addressed to Mr. Dorley was supplied by the complainants. The complainants added that Mr. Dorley had not complied with this order and that, on his behalf, they had presented a formal request to the Swiss Authorities for political asylum. They stated that if Mr. Dorley had returned to Monrovia his personal safety would not have been guaranteed.
3. 46. In a further communication dated 10 October 1974, the complainants stated that the Liberian Ambassador, by giving false information, had systematically prevented Mr. Dorley from being employed by the Permanent Mission of Nigeria, Malaysia and Bangladesh in Geneva.
4. 47. The Committee had noted with regret that the Government of Liberia, despite the various requests to supply its observations on the allegations made against it, had failed to do so, thus preventing the Committee from being able to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts. The Committee had pointed out in this connection that the purpose of the whole procedure for examining complaints concerning infringements of freedom of association was to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee considered that if it provided a guarantee for governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognise the importance for the protection of their good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as might be put forward.
5. 48. In these circumstances, the Committee had recommended the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to the considerations contained in the preceding paragraph and to request the Government to transmit, as soon as possible, the observations requested from it so as to enable the Committee to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.
6. 49. These conclusions were approved by the Governing Body in May 1975 and communicated to the Government. A further two letters of reminder were subsequently sent to the Government, but despite these, the Government has not yet transmitted its observations on the allegations made by the complainants, the first of whose communications dates from 12 March 1974. The Committee has, therefore, decided to examine the merits of the case on the basis of the information supplied by the complainants.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 50. The Committee observes that Mr. Dorley had been a member of the Association of Diplomatic Mission Drivers for several months - from the date of its foundation, the complainants state - when the employment relationship was terminated in circumstances which are not quite clear but were largely related to questions of remuneration and conditions of work. The only precise reference in the complaint to alleged infringement of the exercise of trade union rights is an oral statement said to have been made by the Ambassador on the subject of the dismissal of his chauffeur, to the effect that Mr. Dorley's membership of the complainant union was not welcome. Those allegations were not refuted by the Government. The same applies in regard to the action alleged to have been taken by the Liberian Ambassador either to have Mr. Dorley dismissed from the Permanent Mission of Sudan or to prevent him from being employed by certain other Permanent Missions in Geneva. Acts of this kind would undoubtedly constitute acts of anti-union discrimination as specified in Article 1 of Convention No. 98, which Liberia has ratified. The Committee does not, however, have at its disposal any other evidence to corroborate these allegations.