Interim Report - Report No 110, 1969

Case No 561 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 19-JUL-68 - Closed

1. 204. The complaints are contained in communications from the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions, dated 19 July 1968, the World Confederation of Labour, dated 31 July 1968, the Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees, dated 12 August 1968, and the World Federation of Trade Unions, dated 16 October 1968. These communications were forwarded to the Uruguayan Government, which sent its observations on 26 November 1968.
2. 205. Uruguay 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).

206. In its communication dated 19 July 1968, which was subsequently endorsed by a letter from the World Confederation of Labour dated 31 July 1968, the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions reports the concern being felt in trade union circles in Uruguay at the sharp rise in the cost of living, which had led to a fall in workers' real incomes, especially in public services. The Government informed the unions in May 1968 that it had no intention of freezing wages and proposed setting up a tripartite group to consider wages and anti-inflationary measures. The trade unions took part in the work of this group, which, however, suspended its activities when, on 13 June, the Government broke the conditions for discussion by taking in the country " prompt measures of security ", a possibility provided for under the Constitution in grave and unforeseen cases of foreign aggression or internal disturbance. In other words, according to the complainants, the Government replied to the discussions by measures amounting to a state of emergency although no situation existed to justify such measures. In reality, its aim was not to overcome subversion-which did not exist-but rather to set up a coercive régime to impose a wage freeze and regulations governing trade union activities.

1. 207. The complainants add that, faced with these measures, the trade union movement called a series of strikes to demand the rescinding of the security measures and of the wage freezing order. The Government responded by military mobilisation of bank employees and employees in other state services and industries. This was accompanied by a number of other repressive measures such as the searching of various trade union premises, and the arrest of numerous union leaders, including two members of the management committee of the National Labour Congress (CNT). Hundreds of those detained were held in military barracks. As a result of the strikes, the workers involved forfeited two or three days' pay and a large number of workers' representatives lost their jobs.
2. 208. The complainants consider that the freezing of wages and the proposed trade union regulations are unconstitutional measures and at variance with ILO Conventions on freedom of association. In view of the seriousness of the facts alleged, they call for the appointment of an ILO committee of inquiry to conduct an on-the-spot investigation of the violations in question.
3. 209. In its communication dated 12 August 1968 the Trade Unions International of Public and Allied Employees refers to the same facts, adding that the union leaders imprisoned include the President of the Confederation of Civil Servants' Organisations, Mr. Miguel Angel Olascoaga and the Secretary-General, Mr. Luis Alberto Iguini. They also assert that the Government is taking punitive measures to break the workers' resistance, expressed in a democratic trade union manner, to the continuing rise in the cost of living and the wage freeze imposed by the Government. These actions, it states, constitute a flagrant breach of ILO Conventions on freedom of association.
4. 210. The World Federation of Trade Unions also refers to the same facts in its letter dated 16 October 1968. It states that, faced with the disastrous consequences of the Government's economic and social policy, the workers are fighting for recognition of their claims and to resist the pressure which employers and the Government are exerting on their living and working conditions. The Government has fought back by taking repressive security measures and freezing wages, trade union rights in Uruguay having ceased to exist. The Government has mobilised some 60,000 employees of the following state undertakings and institutions: the National Fuel, Alcohol and Portland Cement Administration (ANCAP), the State Telephone Service (UTE), the Bank of the Republic and the Central Bank, the State Sanitation Service (OSE) and the Telecommunications Administration. The complainants also allege that many workers employed by these undertakings and services were imprisoned or dismissed. Those arrested are stated to have included the two persons mentioned in the communication dated 12 August 1968 referred to above, as well as Mr. Ramón Freire Pizzano, Secretary of the Federation of Wool Workers and a leader of the CNT, and Mr. Otilio Barragán, a leader of the UTE union and a member of the central committee of the CNT. Among the most severe measures taken by the Government is the occupation by the police of the headquarters of the Uruguayan Federation of Commercial and Industrial Employees, the CNT and the Association of Bank Employees. The WFTU claims that the acts in question constitute a breach by the Uruguayan Government of the universally accepted principles of trade union freedom and endanger the existence of the trade union movement in the country. It also draws attention to the existence of a Bill which allegedly constitutes a violation of the right to bargain collectively.
5. 211. The Government replied to these allegations in a letter dated 20 November 1968, accompanied by considerable documentation containing the texts of the different legal provisions applicable to the case. The Government maintains that it has acted in accordance with the Constitution and rejects the complainants' assertions. It explains that in June 1968, faced with serious and unforeseen internal disturbances which endangered law and order within the country, it was necessary to take prompt measures of security in accordance with the provisions of article 168, paragraph 17, of the Constitution. The Government, in accordance with its Constitutional obligation, submitted these measures to Parliament, which confirmed them. All the government decisions called into question by the complainants were taken while the special emergency measures were in force.
6. 212. The Government goes on to state that before and after the adoption of the emergency measures, politically motivated strikes took place in services which were essential to the health, subsistence and even the lives of the population. The Uruguayan Constitution recognises the right to strike, but when regulations on this right were issued, any collective stoppage by civil servants was made illegal (by the civil service regulations). The same prohibition was imposed in the regulations for provincial governments and autonomous agencies. In this particular case, faced with a serious subversive movement and in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, the Government refused to permit the disruption of essential public services and took such steps as were necessary to keep them, operating. This involved the mobilisation of the employees of such essential services as electricity, telephones, telegraphs and fuel supply. This measure was challenged before the Government, by an application for its rescission, which was rejected after an exhaustive analysis of the legality of the decision. The legislation on which the mobilisation of the public employees was based (Act No. 9943 of 1940) has never been called in question before the Supreme Court.
7. 213. Referring to the other allegations, the Government points out that nobody wag imprisoned for political or trade union reasons. No union leader has been kept in custody on the ground of his trade union office and all the arrests were due to breaches of existing legislation or of the decree of 13 June 1968 which imposed the prompt measures of security. It adds that all the persons arrested under these measures were immediately released. The two persons referred to in the communication dated 12 August 1968 have been free since 21 July of the same year. The Government goes on to state that there has been no permanent occupation or any other measure which might impair the freedom of the trade unions to conduct their own affairs-a freedom which is recognised and guaranteed. The Government had merely issued the decree of 13 June 1968 as a temporary measure because of the exceptional situation in the country at the time.
8. 214. Referring to the situation which the country was going through, the Government explains that the economy had been seriously damaged by subversive activities during the preceding months. In view of the growing inflation in the country, the Government ordered a general freeze of wages and prices-a measure which was supported by the public and proved to be effective since the cost of living stopped climbing from August onwards and the economic situation was stabilised. After July 1968, two wage increases were granted to virtually all workers in private employment. The Government adds that a new Act will shortly enter into force to reorganise the system of fixing wages in the private sector, which would take account of experience in Uruguay and elsewhere and also of the principles and standards of the ILO. In the case of civil servants, substantial increases in salaries have been granted under a recent law and certain other provisions. The Government rejects the allegations that the ILO Conventions on freedom of association have been violated, stating that it had to cope with one of the worst crises in the history of the country while at the same time scrupulously observing the Constitution and the legislation in force. The Government also indicates that at the end of August 1968 it terminated the mobilisation of employees of the National Fuel, Alcohol and Portland Cement Administration, the State Sanitation Service and the Telecommunications Administration.
9. 215. The documentation forwarded by the Government includes the text of article 168, paragraph 17, of the Constitution, which is worded as follows:
10. The President of the Republic, acting with the respective minister or ministers or with the Council of Ministers, has the power to:
11. ......................................................................................................................................................
12. Take prompt measures of security in grave and unforeseen cases of foreign aggression or internal disturbance, giving an account within twenty-four hours to a joint session of the Chambers of the Parliament or to the Permanent Committee, as the case may be, of the action taken and its motives, the decision of the latter bodies being final.
13. With respect to persons, the prompt measures of security authorise only their arrest or removal from one place in the territory of the country to another provided they do not elect to leave the country:
14. This measure as well as others must be submitted within twenty-four hours to a joint session of the Chambers of the Parliament or to the Permanent Committee, as the case may be, which will make a final decision.
15. Persons held in custody shall not be kept in premises used for the imprisonment of criminals.
16. 216. The documents forwarded also include a copy of the decree of 13 June 1968 concerning the prompt measures of security. To justify the measures, reference is made in the decree to the strike by public bank employees which made it impossible to keep the main state banks open, as well as to the calling of a strike for an indefinite period by officials of the central Government and the threat of stoppages in other public bodies. The preamble to the decree states that the paralysis of key activities of the central Government by itself creates the situation of internal disturbance referred to in article 168 of the Constitution. Apart from these and other actions, there had also been an unusual climate of street violence and disruption of public order. Accordingly, any measures or activities which might encourage the continuation of this state of affairs are prohibited, especially meetings connected with this prohibition; it is also laid down that the premises in which such meetings are to be held may be closed down. The decree authorises such arrests and other security measures as may be necessary, as well as the introduction of procedures conducive to keeping essential public services functioning.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 217. The Committee observes that this case involves basically a series of measures taken by the Uruguayan Government-prompt measures of security similar to a state of emergency, the freezing of wages and prices, and the mobilisation of workers-which particularly affected the public sector of the economy, since the workers who were called up were employed by various state agencies. These security measures, according to the complainants, were not justified and were designed solely to facilitate the imposition of a wage freeze. Using these powers, the Government had repressed the series of claims formulated by the workers who were striving to protect their wages at a time of acute inflation. This repression had, allegedly, led to serious infringements of trade union rights in that the exercise of the right to strike had been impeded by the mobilisation of the workers concerned, meetings had been forbidden, trade union officials had been dismissed and imprisoned, etc.
2. 218. In other cases dealt with by the Committee in which complaints had been made of alleged infringements of freedom of association under a state of siege or emergency or by virtue of national security legislation, the Committee, while indicating that it is not called upon to comment on the necessity for or desirability of such legislation, which is a purely political consideration, has always taken the view that it must consider what repercussions the legislation might have on trade union rights.
3. 219. In the present case, the legislation in question led firstly to the mobilisation of employees of banks and other state agencies such as the Telecommunications, Sanitation and Fuel Administrations. On other occasions when the Committee has had to examine cases involving the mobilisation of workers, it has taken the view that such a measure is of an exceptional nature in a labour dispute in view of the gravity of its consequences with regard to personal freedoms and trade union rights and could only be justified by the need to ensure the working of essential services or industries whose suspension would lead to ail acute crisis. This is what appears to be the case from the text of the decree concerning the prompt measures of security, according to which not only had work been paralysed in the state banking system and in public administration in general, thereby preventing the normal working of various services which were essential to the administration of the country and the community, but there had also been a climate of violence and breaches of law and order.
4. 220. As regards the other measures by the Government to which the complainants refer-the arrest and dismissal of trade unionists and workers and the occupation of union premises-they appear to have been a direct result of the strikes which occurred after the emergency decree had been issued and the state employees mobilised. With regard more particularly to the arrest of trade unionists, the Committee takes note of the Government's general statement to the effect that all the individuals arrested under the emergency decree were immediately released. The Government specifically refers to Mr. Miguel Angel Olascoaga and Mr. Luis Alberto Iguini, leaders of the Confederation of Civil Servants' Organisations, both of whom were set free on 21 July 1968. The Government makes no mention of Mr. Ramón Freire Pizzano or Mr. Otilio Barragán, both leaders of the CNT, who, according to the communication dated 16 October 1968 from the World Federation of Trade Unions, were also arrested.
5. 221. With regard to the occupation of trade union premises by the police and the army-according to the complainants, the headquarters of the Uruguayan Federation of Commercial and Industrial Employees, the CNT and the Association of Bank Employees-the Committee notes the Government's statement that this occupation was only temporary and took place in accordance with the emergency decree. The Committee accordingly presumes that the premises were duly handed back to the respective trade union organisations.
6. 222. The Committee likewise notes that at the end of August 1968 the mobilisation of employees of the ANCAP, the OSE and the Telecommunications Administration was terminated. It would appear, therefore, that this measure is still in force in the case of the UTE and the state-owned banks.
7. 223. As regards the suspension of the activities of the tripartite group set up to examine the question of wages and the anti-inflationary measures that should be taken-a step which occurred before the issue of the emergency decree, the mobilisation of the workers and the freezing of wages-the Committee notes that the Government makes no specific reference to this point in its reply. The Government merely states that inflation was nullifying the effect of the apparent advantages of higher wages, and that it therefore decided to impose a freeze on both wages and prices. However, the Government explains that this was a temporary measure and that subsequently increases were granted in both the public and the private sectors.
8. 224. The Committee considers that the establishment of the tripartite group was in accordance with the provision in the Consultation (Industrial and National Levels) Recommendation, 1960 (No. 113), to the effect that consultation and co-operation should be promoted between public authorities and employers' and workers' organisations with the general objective of achieving mutual understanding and good relations between them with a view to developing the economy as a whole or individual branches thereof, improving conditions of work and raising standards of living and, in particular, that the authorities should seek the views, advice and assistance of employers' and workers' organisations in an appropriate manner in respect of such matters as the preparation and implementation of laws and regulations affecting their interests. Furthermore, in view of the Government's statement that strikes are illegal in the civil service, the Committee, recalling that allegations concerning the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they affect trade union rights, considers it necessary to refer to another of its conclusions. The Committee has held that while restrictions on the right to strike in the public service or in essential services could be accepted, there should in such cases be adequate guarantees to safeguard the interests of the workers who are thereby deprived of an essential means of defending their occupational interests, which implies that such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned can participate at all stages.
9. 225. The Committee observes that the wage freeze ordered by the Government did not only affect the public sector but also curtailed collective bargaining in the private sector of the economy. In this connection the Committee pointed out in one of its earlier cases that the development of procedures for the voluntary negotiation of agreements constituted an important aspect of freedom of association, but that it would be difficult to lay down an absolute rule concerning this matter because, under certain circumstances, governments might feel that the economic position of their countries called at certain times for stabilisation measures during the application of which it would not be possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through the medium of collective bargaining.
10. 226. In their allegations the complainants also refer to a Bill designed to abolish certain trade union rights and, more particularly, the right to bargain collectively. The Government states in its reply that legislation is due to enter into force to reorganise the system of fixing wages in the private sector and to replace the existing emergency methods by a permanent system, which would take account of the experience of Uruguay and other countries and also of the principles and standards of the ILO.
11. 227. Finally, the Committee takes note of the request by the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions and the World Confederation of Labour in their communications dated 19 and 31 July 1968 for the appointment of an ILO committee of inquiry to make an on-the-spot investigation of the allegations made in the complaints. In the light of the foregoing analysis of the allegations and of the Government's reply, and of the principles set forth, and bearing in mind that the measures taken by the authorities appear to have been temporary and to have already been rescinded as regards certain of the allegations, the Committee does not think it advisable at the present time to give further consideration to this request.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 228. Accordingly, with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to take note of the fact that the mobilisation of employees of the National Fuel, Alcohol and Portland Cement Administration, the State Sanitation Service and the Telecommunications Administration has been terminated;
   • (b) to take note of the Government's statement that the individuals arrested under the prompt measures of security were immediately released and that the occupation of various trade union premises was purely temporary and that the freedom of trade union organisations to conduct their own affairs is recognised;
   • (c) to request the Government to be good enough to inform it more specifically of the present position of the union leaders Ramón Freire Pizzano and Otilio Barragán;
   • (d) to reiterate to the Government the views set forth in paragraph 219 above concerning the mobilisation of workers and to request the Government to inform it of the present position in this respect of the employees of the State Telephone Service and the state-owned banks;
   • (e) to draw the Government's attention similarly to the safeguards which should be laid down for civil servants and employees of essential services who are deprived of the right to strike and the development of voluntary bargaining procedures, and to request it to be good enough to supply details of any developments which may have occurred in this respect;
   • (f) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will present a further report to the Governing Body once it has received the additional information requested from the Government in subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e) above.
     • Geneva, 26 February 1969. (Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.