Interim Report - Report No 112, 1969

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

1. 158. This complaint, lodged by the Latin American Workers' Permanent Congress on Trade Union Unity, was made in a letter dated 5 December 1968. On 3 January 1969 the complaint was referred to the Government, which, in a communication dated 25 April 196 9 sent in its observations.
2. 159. 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. 160. The complainants allege that " freedom of association and the right to organise are systematically violated by the most diverse forms of repression and particularly by violent police activities ".
2. 161. The complainants allege (in very general language) that " over forty trade unions of state and sugar establishments have been taken over and their entire managing committees removed from office arbitrarily and without justification. Trade union leaders have been persecuted by the political police of the régime and many of them have been unjustly put in prison. " The headquarters of the Dominican National Federation of Workers are said to have been raided and equipment confiscated. Municipal unions have not been recognised and 5,000 municipal workers have been dismissed for not joining the government party. Lastly, it is said that the wages of dockworkers belonging to the union known as POASI have had their wages arbitrarily reduced by 63 per cent.
3. 162. The complainants also say that the Government has passed an Austerity Act freezing wages, despite the workers' protests and despite an alarming rise in the cost of living.
4. 163. These are general allegations couched in very general terms. They do not name the unions the executive committees of which are said to have been dissolved, or the trade union leaders said to have been persecuted or arrested, nor is there any indication as to exactly when these events took place. The complainants do, however, make certain other allegations of a rather more specific kind.
5. 164. Thus they claim that on 11 November 1968 the police and army opened fire on the premises of the Stevedores' Union (POASI), before occupying those premises by force, despite the fact that they had no legal warrant to do so. Fifteen workers, it is stated, were arrested and thrown into gaol, and others disappeared; their present whereabouts are unknown, but there is reason to believe they may have been wounded. Many workers, it is said, were fired on and brutally assaulted with rifle butts and clubs.
6. 165. " This brutal assault by the police and military ", the complainants go on to say, " also involved the destruction by the attackers of desks, pictures, telephones, windows, typewriters, files, doors and fans, and the union headquarters were subjected to a general and destructive vandalism......
7. 166. In its observations on the general allegations (see paragraph 161) the Government simply states that "it is not true that trade union leaders have been persecuted or imprisoned ".
8. 167. The Committee thus has to decide which of two completely contradictory statements is the more worthy of credence. In view, however, of the very general language used by the complainants, who failed, moreover, to avail themselves of the possibility of backing up their allegations with further information, the Committee feels that the veracity of these allegations has not been adequately demonstrated, and hence recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case calls for no further consideration.
9. 168. The freezing of wages, referred to in paragraph 162 above, would appear to be an aspect of official wages policy rather than an attack on the principle of freedom of association. In this connection, the Government declares that the Austerity Act, which froze wages for the sake of the balance of payments, has recently been amended in a manner favourable to the workers. Their claims, the Government affirms, have to some extent been met, since private firms and public undertakings which have made a profit during the financial year have been authorised to increase wages.
10. 169. This aspect of the matter is not directly related to the exercise of trade union rights, and the Committee accordingly recommends that the Governing Body merely take note of the Government's statement.
11. 170. As regards the allegations analysed in paragraphs 164 and 165 above, the Government begins by asserting that, contrary to the complainants' statement, it is quite untrue that there were numerous victims of the events which took place on the night of 11 November 1968.
12. 171. The Government then presents what happened in the following night. In the middle of the night, it says, a police patrol was attacked; the attackers, pursued by the police, took refuge in the trade union premises concerned, which premises suffered some damage in the ensuing action. The Government continues by saying that, although in no way responsible for " these deplorable incidents ", it has arranged for the necessary repairs to be undertaken.
13. 172. While taking due note of the Government's statement concerning this aspect of the matter, the Committee wishes to know whether any official investigation has been undertaken to ascertain responsibilities and, if so, what the conclusions are.
14. 173. Hence it recommends the Governing Body to ask the Government to be so good as to supply the information mentioned in paragraph 172 above.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 174. As regards the case as a whole, the Committee recommends that the Governing Body:
   • (a) decide that for the reasons set forth in paragraph 167 above, the general allegations analysed in paragraph 161 (winding up of trade union executive committees, arrest of trade union leaders and dismissals of workers) call for no further consideration;
   • (b) take note of the Government's statement that the Austerity Act has been amended in such a way that the workers' aspirations are to some extent met;
   • (c) ask the Government to state whether any official inquiry has been made with a view to assessing responsibility for the events of 11 November 1968, mentioned in paragraphs 164, 165 and 171 above, and, if there has been such an inquiry, to indicate what the conclusions were;
   • (d) take note of the present interim report, on the understanding that the Committee will report again after it has received the additional information referred to in paragraph (c) above.