Definitive Report - Report No 98, 1967

Case No 444 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 27-MAY-65 - Closed

1. 87. The Committee examined this case at its meeting held in February 1966, when it submitted to the Governing Body, in paragraphs 90 to 105 of its 89th Report, its conclusions concerning some of the allegations made in the complaint. The only point that remained to be dealt with was an allegation to the effect that the undertaking had coerced a leader of the complainant trade union to resign from office.
2. 88. Since the Government had not sent its observations on this particular aspect of the matter, the Committee had recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 105 (d) of its 89th Report, to request the Government to be so good as to send those observations. After the Governing Body had approved the 89th Report, this request was conveyed to the Government, which answered by a communication dated 24 January 1967.
3. 89. Costa Rica 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. 90. The complainants allege in their communication of 10 July 1965 that Mr. Belforth Quesada Rojas had been subjected to pressure by the Compañia Bananera de Costa Rica to resign from his post as records and correspondence secretary of the trade union.
2. 91. In its additional observations dated 24 January 1967 the Government stated that it appeared from the report and documents it had obtained from the undertaking in question that Mr. Quesada Rojas's resignation was in no way the result of coercion. The Government attached a photocopy of the statement signed by the persons concerned to the effect that he had resigned of his own free will from membership and office in the trade union and that at no time had he been threatened or coerced by the company.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 92. In the circumstances, taking into account the detailed information supplied by the Government, from which it would appear that the trade union leader named in the complaint had resigned of his own free will, and in view of the fact that the complainants have not supplied further elements of information in support of their allegation that such resignation was a result of coercion by the undertaking, in violation of freedom of association, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this remaining aspect of the case does not call for further examination.