Definitive Report - Report No 11, 1954

Case No 76 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 01-JUN-53 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Analysis of the Complaint
  104. 104 The complainant alleges that the Government forcibly suppressed a strike called to obtain better contracts for workers on the banana plantations and imprisoned three trade union leaders, Isaias Marchena, Domingo Rojas and Victor Solano, on the charge of damage to property. The complainant further alleges that the Government declared the strike to be unlawful and ordered the arrest of other trade union leaders. The complainant requests the cessation of acts of violence and the liberation of the workers and trade union leaders now in prison.
• Analysis of the Reply
  105. 105 In its reply the Government first recalls that it is anxious to encourage the development of a healthy trade union movement free from external influences and considers that such an accusation would not have been made in Costa Rica itself, since the population, both Costa Ricans and foreigners, are well aware that they live in an atmosphere of complete freedom. It further states that the strike called by a considerable section of the Costa Rican Banana Company's workers was declared unlawful not by the Government but by the competent courts and stresses in this respect the absolute independence of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive.
  106. 106 In conformity with the courts' decision the Government sent a detachment of police to the spot, but their action was strictly confined to the maintenance of order. Only one regrettable event occurred during the strike, arising out of an incident between the strikers and the Resguardo fiscal de Corredores de Coto, and resulting in a number of casualties including one death. The determination of responsibility for the incident is at present sub judice.
  107. 107 It is true that the authorities arrested the trade union leaders referred to, after a complaint by the Costa Rican Banana Company concerning damage caused by the strikers in overturning a locomotive, and they were held for trial by the competent legal authority. Steps were, however, subsequently taken to secure the liberation of the trade union leaders - who have remained at liberty -and they have taken part in the discussions which preceded the resumption of work.
  108. 108 The Government gives a detailed account of efforts by the President of the Republic and the Ministry of Labour to bring about a solution of the dispute. The President secured an initial assurance from the Company that if the workers resumed work it would undertake that the contracts of employment should not be regarded as broken and that the workers would retain their right to restate their demands for satisfaction of their claims through legal channels. When the workers complained of the slowness of normal procedure, the Minister of Labour intervened to obtain a direct agreement between the Company and the workers, and the workers elected delegates to negotiate with the management of the undertaking. As a result of such conciliation measures the workers agreed to resume work without there having been any repressive measures or physical or psychological coercion. Finally, the President of the Republic, in collaboration with the undertaking, examined means of granting the workers a rise in wages. The Government considers that its attitude was decidedly favourable to the workers, as far as was just and reasonable, and that it is not a subject for complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Allegation that the Strike Was Declared Unlawful
  109. 109 The complainant alleges that the strike called by the banana plantation workers to obtain better contracts was declared unlawful, and although it is not explicitly stated, the implication is that such a measure was taken by the Government. The latter in its reply stresses that the strike was declared unlawful by the labour courts-bodies which form part of the judiciary and which are completely independent of the executive-" for reasons exclusively within their jurisdiction ".
  110. 110 Under the Costa Rican Labour Code it is for the labour courts to decide on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a strike. According to Section 366 of the Code, in order to declare a lawful strike the employees must:
       • (a) comply strictly with the provisions of Section 364 [according to which " lawful strike " means the temporary stoppage of work in an undertaking, establishment or business, agreed to and carried out peacefully by a group of three or more employees for the exclusive purpose of bettering their common economic and social position or defending their common economic and social interests];
       • (b) exhaust the conciliation procedure prescribed by Chapter III of Part VII of this Code; and
       • (c) constitute at least 60 per cent of the persons who are employed in the undertaking, workplace or business in question.
  111. 111 Although the Government does not give in detail the reasons on which the labour court based its decision that the strike was unlawful, there is no doubt that the labour court's decision was taken under regulations provided for in the Labour Code.
  112. 112 In these circumstances the Committee, therefore, considers that, as regards the first allegation, the complainant has not furnished proof that the Government interfered with the exercise of trade union rights.
• Allegations concerning the Forcible Suppression of the Strike
  113. 113 In support of the allegation that the strike was suppressed by force the complainant refers to the arrest of three trade union leaders. The complainant himself states that they were arrested on a charge of damage to property. The Government explains in its reply that the arrest was decided on as a result of a complaint by the Company that the strikers had overturned a locomotive. It is relevant in this respect that although the 1949 Costa Rican Constitution recognises the right to strike in article 61, it expressly stipulates that it shall be exercised in conformity with legal regulations and that any act of coercion and violence shall be forbidden. Section 367 of the Labour Code likewise reads " a strike shall be limited to the mere act of suspending work and stopping work. Acts of coercion or violence against persons or property shall be punished by the appropriate penalties to be imposed by the ordinary criminal authorities." According to the Government's statement the arrested trade union leaders were held at the disposal of the courts. They were subsequently set free and personally took part in the negotiations which led to work's being resumed.
  114. 114 The steps taken to secure the freeing of the trade union leaders and the details given by the Government concerning the negotiations it undertook in agreement with them, both with the Company and with the workers, to bring about a peaceful solution of the dispute contradict the complainant's allegations that the strike was suppressed by force.
  115. 115 It is true that the Government also states that an incident occurred resulting in a number of casualties, including one death. It states, however, that this was an isolated incident which occurred at the beginning of the dispute and which was duly referred to the courts. It stresses in this respect that the detachment of police summoned to the place of the dispute, after the strike had been declared unlawful by the labour court, confined their activity to the maintenance of law and order without exerting pressure and without taking any improper measures.
  116. 116 The complainant does not refer to the fatal casualty in the text of the complaint and has not brought forward any other facts to support the allegation that the strike was suppressed by violence.
  117. 117 For these reasons the Committee considers that as regards the second allegation the complainant has not adduced sufficient proof to lead to a conclusion that the Government interfered with the exercise of trade union rights.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 118. In these circumstances, therefore, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.
2. 119. The Committee now proceeds to indicate the circumstances in which it considers that the case relating to Poland (Case No. 58) merits further examination by the Governing Body.