Definitive Report - Report No 73, 1964

Case No 348 (Honduras) - Complaint date: 08-JUL-63 - Closed

1. 102. The original complaint was submitted on 8 July 1963 by the Standard Fruit Company Workers' Union (SITRASFRUCO). A copy of the complaint was forwarded to the Government of Honduras, by letter dated 25 July 1963, for its observations. These were forwarded on 18 September 1963.
2. 103. Honduras 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. 104. In the complaint the interference of the public authorities in the internal affairs of the Union is denounced. It is stated in this connection that during the Eighth Congress of SITRASFRUCO on 31 May 1963 the President of the Honduran Republic sent a telegram to the Department Political Governor which read as follows:
   • I have been informed that in the Eighth Ordinary Congress of the Workers of the Standard Fruit Company there are marked anti-democratic tendencies to obtain the inclusion in the Executive of the Union of elements of noted Marxist affiliation, some of whom have recently travelled in communist Cuba. Since the Constitution of the Republic prohibits all activity contrary to the democratic spirit of the Honduran Republic, please inform the most responsible leaders of the labour movement in this sector of employment that any infiltration of Marxist elements in the ranks of the Executive members will be considered as a practice harmful to the trade union movement, to worker/employer relations and to relationships between the Government and the workers' trade union organisations. Please get in touch with the trade union leaders of democratic views and inform me concerning the success of these steps designed to reinforce the democratic conquests achieved during the era of the Second Republic.
   • Affectionately yours,
   • (Signed) Ramón VILLEDA MORALES,
   • President of the Republic.
2. 105. The complainants consider that this is a case of interference in trade union activities in contravention of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).
3. 106. The complainants also state that, ever since the change in the Executive Committee of the Union was registered with the Directorate-General of Labour, the authorities have declared that registration to be suspended without allowing the right to uphold legally the effects of the registration.
4. 107. In its reply the Government states that the presidential message does not imply any violation of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). In fact under the National Constitution workers and employers may associate freely for the exclusive purposes of their economic and social activity. It appears that certain leaders of SITRASFRUCO engage in Marxist activities, which are prohibited by the National Constitution. Also under the Labour Code trade unions are not permitted to engage in party activities. In the above-mentioned message the workers were merely reminded that the trade union organisations guaranteed by Honduran legislation are inimical to communist trade union associations. In no case was there any question of limiting the right of election of trade union representatives.
5. 108. The Government also contests the allegation that in suspending the effect of the registration of the new Executive Committee Convention No. 87 was violated. The Government transmits in this connection the documents drawn up by the administrative authorities with regard to the facts related, as well as a copy of the award made on this matter by the Supreme Court of Justice. According to these documents, on 7 June 1963, Mr. Héctor Costa Romero informed the Directorate-General of Labour of the change in the Executive Committee of which he was President. The Directorate-General confirmed that from the formal point of view the change in the Executive Committee had been accomplished legally. A few days later it was reported by the Directorate-General that irregularities had taken place in the election of that committee and the registration of another Executive Committee elected by dissident members of the Congress was requested. What happened was that, when the time came for the election of the new Executive Committee during the Eighth Congress of SITRASFRUCO, some dissident delegates abandoned the meeting and decided to elect their own Executive Committee. This occurred in the night of 31 May-1 June 1963. In view of these facts and faced with the existence of two Executive Committees, the Directorate-General of Labour decided that the election of the trade union representatives would be temporarily without effect until the appropriate investigation had been made and until the defects of the action taken during the Congress had been rectified. The present complainants did not make an appeal against this decision of the Directorate-General.
6. 109. Subsequently another impeachment of the legality of the election of the Executive Committee with Mr. Costa Romero as President was made. According to this a series of irregularities went on during the Congress until finally a group of from 30 to 63 delegates to the Congress withdrew and those who remained decided to give a vote of confidence to the present Executive Committee of the union. In accordance with the position thus described, Mr. Costa Romero informed the Directorate-General of Labour of the appointment of a new Executive Committee. In reality, according to the rules, the election should proceed by secret ballot, nominal or otherwise, and be carried out by the Council of Delegates. For his part, Mr. Costa Romero contested the terms of the impeachment, rejecting them and explaining that in all cases the provisions of the rules had been complied with.
7. 110. The Ministry of Labour, acting through the Labour Inspectorate in La Ceiba town, carried out an investigation with a view to ascertaining whether the Congress proceeded in conformity with the legal provisions and the rules in force. According to the results of the investigation a series of acts took place which were in contravention of the provisions of the Labour Code and of the rules of the union. Consequently, the Directorate-General of Labour determined that the acts which occurred in the Congress were tainted with nullity and that neither of the two executive committees were valid. Mr. Costa Romero filed an appeal against this determination with the Supreme Court of Justice, which in its decision rejected that appeal on the grounds that no Constitutional guarantee had been violated. A few days before this decision a new Executive Committee had already been elected by the delegates duly accredited to the Thirteenth Extraordinary Congress of the Union.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 111. Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), provides that "workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes" and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. On a number of occasions the Committee has emphasised the importance it attaches to the generally accepted principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of workers' organisations to elect their representatives in freedom and organise their administration and activities.
2. 112. The Committee notes that in the present case, at the time when the new Executive Committee was to be elected during the Congress held by SITRASFRUCO, a group of dissident delegates abandoned the meeting. This occurred immediately after the President of the Republic had sent the telegram mentioned in that complaint. In these circumstances the intervention of the President may have influenced the mood and the purpose of the delegates as well as influencing the attitude adopted in regard to the election of the new representatives of the organisation. The Committee considers that the fact that the authorities should intervene during the election proceedings of a union, expressing their opinion of the candidates and the consequences of the election, seriously challenges the principle whereby the trade union organisations are entitled to elect their representatives in full freedom.
3. 113. In regard to the allegations referring to the suspension of the effect of the registration of the new Executive Committee, the Committee observes that by reason of the measures of an administrative nature adopted by the Directorate-General of Labour the union was for some time deprived of ruling bodies and of representatives of the organisation. Already on other occasions the Committee has expressed the opinion that the removal by an administrative authority of a person from his office in a trade union is a procedure that might lead to abuses or to the violation of the generally recognised right which organisations possess of electing their representatives in full freedom and organising their own administration and activities.
4. 114. Since the suspension of the results of an election procedure may have similar effects to the suspension of the organisation itself, the Committee wishes to refer to what it has already pointed out on another occasion, namely that when the measures of suspension are adopted by the administrative authority there is a risk that they may appear arbitrary also when they are provisional and temporary and even when they are followed by judicial action. The Committee considers that the principles established in Article 3 of Convention No. 87 do not prevent supervision of control of the internal acts of a trade union if those internal acts do not violate legal provisions or rules. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that it is of maximum importance that, in order to guarantee an impartial and objective procedure, control should be exercised by the relevant judicial authority.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 115. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it has always attached to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any intervention that might restrict the freedom of the workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom;
   • (b) to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that if the authorities intervene during the election proceedings of a union, expressing their opinion on the candidates and on the possible consequences of the elections, this constitutes a serious infringement of the principle that trade union organisations have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom;
   • (c) to decide, with regard to the alleged administrative intervention arising out of the election of trade union representatives, to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that, in the event of it proving necessary to exercise any control over the internal acts of a trade union, it is of paramount importance, in order to guarantee an impartial and objective procedure, that such control should be exercised by the competent judicial authority.