Definitive Report - Report No 14, 1954

Case No 108 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 28-JUL-54 - Closed

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 76. The complaint presented directly to the I.L.O on 28 July 1954 by the General Confederation of Costa Rican Workers alleges that the President of the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, an influential personality in the present Government, has laid before the Assembly a Bill which would prohibit an entire sector of the working class from performing official functions in trade union organisations.
2. 77. It is alleged that the Bill is contrary not only to the provisions of the Costa Rican Constitution but also to the principles enunciated in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In particular, it brings into question the right to establish and join occupational organisations without previous authorisation, the right of workers' and employers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom without interference on the part of the public authorities, the guarantee provided against the dissolution or suspension of workers' or employers' organisations by administrative authority, the right to establish federations and Confederations and the right to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers, etc.
3. 78. The complainant requests the I.L.O to intervene to persuade the executive authority to ensure that the Bill will not be submitted to the Legislative Assembly in the course of its extraordinary session, or, in the event of the Bill being adopted, to make use of its right of veto. The complaint is accompanied by a declaration presented to Parliament by the complaining organisation, in which it is alleged that the real purpose of the proposed enactment is to suppress those trade unions which are not affiliated to the Confederation of Labour Rerum Novarum, and by an issue of La Gaceta containing the text of the Bill.
4. 79. In accordance with paragraph 23 of the Ninth Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the Director-General informed the complaining organisation that any further information which it might care to present in substantiation of its complaint should be communicated to him within one month, but no further information has been received from the complaining organisation.
   • ANALYSIS OF THE REPLY
5. 80. In its letter dated 22 September 1954 the Government of Costa Rica states that the Bill criticised by the complainant was submitted to the Legislative Assembly by its President exercising the right to introduce Bills which is enjoyed by all Members of Parliament. Until such time as the Bill may be adopted by the Assembly the executive authority cannot pronounce upon it. At the present time the Bill is only in course of being examined by the Assembly.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 81. The essential allegation by the complainant relates to the submission to the Legislative Assembly, by one of its members, of a Bill which, if it should be adopted, would, according to the complainant, place several restrictions on freedom of association. The proposed enactment, the text of which is attached to the complaint, would in particular amend the Labour Code by forbidding persons who have been members of or sympathisers with any of the political parties prohibited by the Constitution or by Parliament to act as trade union officers. In addition, the Minister of Labour would have power to dissolve trade unions which did not comply with this provision. Persons who had been members of or sympathisers with the Communist Party could not join or represent a trade union. The fact that it had more than two members who were Communist sympathisers would justify the dissolution of a union, and the fact that it had not complied with a provision in the proposed enactment would render it liable to fairly serious penalties.
2. 82. The complainant maintains that the provisions in the Bill would constitute infringements of the right to organise guaranteed by the Constitution of Costa Rica at the national level and by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) at the international level.
3. 83. The Government, without commenting on the substance of the provisions of the Bill, points out that, as it is simply a question of a Bill having been submitted to Parliament by one of its members in the exercise of his ordinary parliamentary functions (article 123 of the Constitution : " the initiative in presenting Bills is a right of any member of the Legislative Assembly and, through the ministers, of the Executive "), responsibility cannot be imputed to the Government. It is only after a Bill has been approved by Parliament that the Government can express its attitude towards it.
4. 84. In two previous cases (Case No. 79 : Belgium, and Case No. 80 : Federal Republic of Germany), in which allegations with respect to pending legislation came before it, the Committee took the view that it should take no action on the ground that the vagueness of the allegations concerning legislative intentions made in those cases, and the considerable uncertainty whether any action would in fact be taken at all, made it unprofitable to attempt to examine the allegations on their merits. At first sight, the position would appear to be different in the present case, because the complaining organisation has annexed to its complaint the text of the proposed enactment against which complaint is made.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 85. In the present case, as the Government observes, it is not a question of a proposed enactment introduced by the Government, as in Case No. 105 relating to Greece, but simply of a Bill presented by a Member of Parliament exercising his normal functions, which has not, for the moment, been adopted by Parliament. In these circumstances, while emphasising again the importance which it attaches to the principles that workers should have the right to join organisations of their own choosing and that their organisations should not be liable to be dissolved by administrative authority, but noting the assurance given by the Government that the Bill in question in the present case is not a Government proposal, the Committee, without prejudging any examination as to the merits which it might be called upon to make as the result of a further complaint being presented in the event of the Bill being adopted, considers that it would be premature for it to take any action on the present complaint.