Definitive Report - Report No 86, 1966

Case No 430 (United States of America) - Complaint date: 27-FEB-65 - Closed

1. 35. The complaint of the Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unionists (C.L.A.S.C.) is contained in a communication addressed directly to the I.L.O on 27 February 1965. The Government of the United States furnished its observations in two communications dated 5 May and 26 July 1965.
2. 36. The United States has not ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to a Strike of Employees of the Sundale Manufacturing Corporation
  37. 37 The complainants state that from 30 September 1964 onwards the Puerto Rican Federation of Democratic Trade Unions met with executives of the Sundale Manufacturing Corporation, Ponce, in efforts to negotiate an agreement for its employees. As these efforts failed, the Conciliation Office was asked to intervene, but, it is alleged, the employers refused conciliation. An indefinite strike began on 23 November 1964.
  38. 38 Subsequently, the owners of the firm came to Puerto Rico and further negotiation took place but, it is alleged, the manager of the firm brought up matters not connected with the dispute and prevented an agreement being reached. Further negotiations were also inconclusive. On 30 January 1965 the factory was closed for economic reasons.
  39. 39 On 8 February 1965, say the complainants, a truck attempted to cross the picket line, which had been there for 78 days. Pickets persuaded the driver not to enter the factory. On 9 February police arrived at the picket and, it is alleged, a truck then arrived, the driver of which was accompanied by a special policeman. According to the complainants, a police lieutenant ordered the driver to enter and forbade the pickets to speak to him, this being contrary to the law, which permits peaceful persuasion by pickets. However, it is alleged, the commander of the police persisted in ordering the driver to enter and, when the pickets tried to speak to him, one of them was arrested, and a striker, Mrs. Justina Cruz, was also arrested because she protested. It is alleged further that another picket, Mr. Vera Vera, was arrested and beaten and that Miss Iris Santiago, a further picket arrested for protesting, was beaten and dragged along the street. Another union member, Mr. F. Velázquez, was also arrested. Afterwards, public protests were organised.
  40. 40 In its communication dated 5 May 1965 the Government of the United States explained that the Constitution and laws of Puerto Rico guarantee and protect the right to strike and that the right to picket and to dissuade persons from working is also protected, but that the right to use force to prevent the crossing of a picket line is not protected.
  41. 41 The Government stated that an investigation of the incidents occurring during the strike was being undertaken by the District Attorney of the city of Ponce, that an investigation had also been ordered by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico, and that the Government was prepared to obtain information on the factual issues from the competent authorities, if the Committee so desired.
  42. 42 At its meeting in May 1965 the Committee decided to request the Government to be good enough to forward an official factual statement on the matter from the competent authorities and, in particular, to inform the Committee as to the outcome of the investigation being made by the District Attorney of Ponce and of that ordered by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico.
  43. 43 On 26 July 1965 the Government furnished a copy of a report on the matter from the Office of the Attorney-General in San Juan, based on the investigation made by the District Attorney of Ponce.
  44. 44 The District Attorney took sworn statements from four police officers involved and statements from seven strikers or union officials.
  45. 45 The investigation shows, says the Government, that on 9 February 1965, the day when the material factual incidents took place, Police Lieutenant Rovira Ramos was informed by a truck owner, Mr. F. Delgado, that his trucks would not be permitted to enter the factory premises, and that the lieutenant and other policemen went to the site. A truck arrived and, according to the report, Mr. Velázquez and some of the strikers tried unsuccessfully to persuade the driver not to enter the factory. When the truck moved forward, it is stated, Mr. Velázquez stood in front of it, used foul language and stated that no truck would be allowed to enter. He was arrested for breach of the peace by Police Officer Osvaldo Vélez and then tried to escape and was chased by the officer. At this point, says the report, Mrs. Justina Ortiz (not Cruz) assaulted the officer with a cudgel and was arrested. She resisted, and some women strikers, including Miss Iris Santiago, started shouting and moved in front of the moving truck. The police pushed them aside to prevent them being knocked down.
  46. 46 Later in the same day, according to the report, Mr. Vera Vera, a union leader, threw a rock at a truck leaving the factory, breaking the windscreen. He was arrested, and some of the strikers, including Miss Iris Santiago, tried to obstruct the police. Miss Santiago was charged with a violation of article 137 of the Penal Code concerning the obstruction of justice.
  47. 47 In the ensuing trials in the courts Mrs. Justina Ortiz was found guilty of aggravated assault and battery and fined 25 dollars; Mr. Velázquez was sentenced to a fine of 50 dollars or 60 days in jail; Mr. Vera Vera was found guilty before a jury on a charge of preventing a police officer from performing his duties, a felony. Miss Santiago, charged with resisting a police officer, was acquitted.
  48. 48 The Committee has always applied the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights. It has also pointed out that the right of workers and their organisations to strike as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests is generally recognised.$ The Committee has also emphasised the importance that it attaches to the principle that pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities.
  49. 49 In the present case it appears that three of the four persons arrested by the police for acts in violation of the Penal Code were eventually found guilty by the courts. The fourth was acquitted on a relatively minor charge.
  50. 50 The only point on which there is real conflict of evidence is whether or not the police interfered with the right of peaceful picketing and the right to try to dissuade workers from working, rights which are guaranteed by the laws of Puerto Rico. According to the complainants the police forbade strikers on 9 February 1965 to try to persuade a truck driver not to enter the factory. According to the report of the District Attorney of Ponce they were not prevented from speaking to the truck driver, but they failed to persuade him. In respect to this question as to credibility it is to be observed that no one tried to prevent the strikers from persuading a truck driver on 8 February and that, on that day, the picket lines had been operating for 78 days without any complaint of interference with them ever having been made.
  51. 51 In all the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the right to strike and to picket peacefully are guaranteed by the law, the Committee does not consider that the complainants have offered sufficient proof in support of their allegations that the rights in question were violated.
  52. 52 In view of the nature of the report furnished by the District Attorney of Ponce and of the verdicts given by the courts the Committee does not now consider it necessary to await the outcome of the parallel investigation ordered by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico before formulating its conclusions.
  53. 53 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Legislation of Puerto Rico
  54. 54 The complainants allege that the laws are one-sided and favour the employers and ask where is the right to strike embodied in the laws and where is the right of association if fear of the employers prevents the workers from organising freely.
  55. 55 In its communication dated 5 May 1965 the Government refers to the specific provisions in the Constitution and the legislation which guarantee the right to strike and the right to organise and prohibit reprisal by employers. Charges of violation of these rights can be filed with the Puerto Rican Labor Relations Board. Copies of the relevant provisions have been furnished.
  56. 56 The allegations made are in such general terms and not supported by any specific illustrations that the Committee feels that it is quite unnecessary to examine the legislation in greater detail, considering that the allegations are too vague to permit of an examination of them on their merits.
  57. 57 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that these allegations do not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 58. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.