Definitive Report - Report No 116, 1970

Case No 566 (Dominican Republic) - Complaint date: 05-DEC-68 - Closed

1. 34. The Committee examined this case at its session in May 1969, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 158-174 of its 112th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body.
2. 35. In paragraph 174 of its 112th Report, the Committee submitted to the Governing Body a number of final conclusions on certain aspects of the case and a recommendation that the Governing Body request the Government of the Dominican Republic to send further information to enable the Committee to form its conclusions on the allegation, the examination of which had remained in abeyance. The Government furnished this information in a communication dated 10 October 1969.
3. 36. The Dominican Republic 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. 37. In their first communication the complainants had alleged that on 11 November 1968 the police and army had opened fire on the premises of the Stevedores' Union (POASI), before occupying the premises by force, although they had no legal warrant to do so; fifteen workers are said to have been arrested and other workers, who were injured, are said to have disappeared. Many workers are alleged to have been brutally assaulted and there is said to have been destruction of furniture and of the union headquarters in general.
2. 38. In its first communication concerning these allegations, the Government stated that it was incorrect that there had been a considerable number of persons injured in connection with the above-mentioned events. The Government stated that on the night of 11 November 1968 a police patrol was attacked by individuals. When the attackers were pursued by the patrol to the premises in which they had taken refuge, the building of the above-mentioned trade union organisation suffered some damage. Although the Government assumed no responsibility for the incidents, it had taken the necessary measures for the building to bet repaired.
3. 39. The Committee had taken note of the Government's statements and recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to indicate whether an official inquiry had been carried out to establish responsibility for these occurrences and, if so, to communicate the results of this inquiry.
4. 40. In its subsequent communication the Government states that it ordered a detailed inquiry into the facts complained of, and that this inquiry has revealed that the police who took action in the case did so within the limits of their functions. The Government repeats that it has no responsibility " in this regrettable incident ", despite which it " compensated the leaders of the Stevedores' Union (POASI), in agreement with them, for repairs to the damaged building and furniture ".

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 41. At the time of noting these new statements by the Government, the Committee deplores the fact that they contain no concrete information on the causes behind the incidents, simply stating that the police were not exceeding their powers. For their part, the complainants have not taken advantage of the possibility of supplying more detailed information on the events complained about. The Committee considers that for want of more detailed evidence it is impossible for it to reach definite conclusions on the facts in question.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 42. In any case, in view of the fact that the Government has in the meanwhile paid compensation to the Stevedores' Union, in agreement with its leaders, in order for the trade union building to be repaired, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide, subject to the above reservation, that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination.