ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards

Interim Report - Report No 158, November 1976

Case No 672 (Dominican Republic) - Complaint date: 12-JUN-71 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

300. The Committee already examined Case No. 672 in May and November 1972 and on each occasion it submitted a report to the Governing Body. These reports appear in paragraphs 114 to 118 of the Committee's 131st report and paragraphs 300 to 312 of its 133rd report.

  1. 300. The Committee already examined Case No. 672 in May and November 1972 and on each occasion it submitted a report to the Governing Body. These reports appear in paragraphs 114 to 118 of the Committee's 131st report and paragraphs 300 to 312 of its 133rd report.
  2. 301. In its 133rd Report, the Committee recommended that the Governing Body request the Government to provide additional information on one aspect of the matter. Despite repeated requests, this information was not received. The Committee, therefore, addressed urgent appeals to the Government in November 1973 and February and May 1974 that it supply the information requested. In November 1974 and February 1975, the Committee noted with regret that despite its appeals the requested information still had not been received. In May 1975 it again made an urgent appeal to the Government to supply the information.
  3. 302. Regarding Cases Nos. 768, 802, 819 and 822, the complaints and additional information submitted by the complainants appear in the following communications: three communications, of 17 October 1973, 17 September 1974 and 13 June 1975, from the National Union of Heavy Machinery Operators (SINOMAPE), a communication of 8 November 1973, from the National Federation of Dockworkers, two communications, of 1 May 1974 and 28 November 1975, from the Stevedores' Union (POASI), a communication of 20 August 1974, from the General Workers' Federation (CGT), two communications, of 30 September 1974 and 31 July 1975, from the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), three communications, of 14 November 1974, 16 July and 20 October 1975, from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL).
  4. 303. These complaints were transmitted to the Government as they were received, with requests for observations. Apart from some very general replies sent by communications of 10 January and 8 July 1975, and despite the time which had elapsed since the presentation of the first complaints (Case No. 768), the Committee received no information from the Government on the various allegations. In November 1974 and May 1975, the Committee sent urgent requests to the Government to submit the information requested (Case No. 768).
  5. 304. As the information requested on all these cases was not received, the Committee asked the Director-General in November 1975 to communicate with the highest level of the Government, on behalf of the Committee, expressing the Committee's concern and urgently requesting the Government to provide the observations requested from it (Cases Nos. 672, 768, 802 and 822). The Government finally submitted information by communications of 9, 13 and 20 February 1976.
  6. 305. 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

A. A. The complainants' allegations
  • Allegations Outstanding
  • Case No. 672
    1. 306 The IMP alleged in a communication of 12 June 1971 that, according to information provided by SINOMAPE (one of its affiliates), the headquarters of the UNACHOSIN and POASI unions had been entered and ransacked and that Mr. Albuquerque, general secretary of the UNACHOSIN union, had been arrested with 39 other workers, members of that organisation. The complainants stated that the acts had been committed by members of the national police force together with the private organisation linked to the Government, called the "Juventud Democrática Reformista Anticomunista";
    2. 307 As regards the destruction of the furniture and premises of the POASI and UNACHOSIN union headquarters, the Government stated in its reply that these organisations could apply to the courts for damages. It added that the UNACHOSIN offices had been handed back to the union's officers a few days after the events in question and that trade union activities of both the POASI and UNACHOSIN unions were proceeding normally.
    3. 308 In its 133rd Report, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to certain principles and to request it to submit its observations on the complainants' allegations concerning arrests, specifying the present: situation of Mr. Albuquerque and of the 39 workers said to have been arrested with him.
  • Case No. 768
    1. 309 SINOMAPE stated in its letter of 17 October 1973 that the Government had struck a new blow at the Stevedores' Union (POASI), attempting to impose a new leadership upon it by force. A small group of dockworkers, with the assistance of the Secretary of State for Labour and the Director for Labour, had organised elections behind the backs of the vast majority of the members of the union and this had led to large-scale clashes between the two groups, in which the genuine members came off second-best because the group Protected by the Government enjoyed the protection of the national police. The complainants asked for an on-the-spot investigation.
    2. 310 The National Federation of Dockworkers reported by a telegram of 8 November 1973 that the Government had occupied the premises of the POASI union and incarcerated its principal leaders.
    3. 311 The Stevedores' Union (POASI) complained in a letter of 1 May 1974 about the repeated restrictions on freedom of association of which it is the victim. It stated that the Secretariat for Labour had imposed rigged elections on 27 March 1973 (in which 163 of its total of 1,348 members had taken part). The elections had been held at a time when the country was going through a political crisis because of the landing of guerrillas at Playas Caracoles and the Government had taken advantage of the considerable disorder to commit these violations of freedom of association. The elections had been challenged by the majority of its members (766 signatures), but the Secretariat for Labour had accepted them as legal and valid. According to the complainants, the leaders in question were from outside the union and were in the service of the Government. The union had organised new elections on 25 July 1973 that were genuinely democratic, despite the fact that its premises were entirely occupied by members of the military services who prevented them from carrying out their trade union duties freely. A new executive Committee, headed by Marcelino Vásquez, was elected with a majority of 899 votes, 9 votes being null and void. These elections were not accepted by the Secretariat of Labour, said by the complainants to be pro-Government, and the will of the majority continued to be ignored.
    4. 312 On 16 September 1973, continue the complainants, the police forced the trade unionists to leave their premises. A general secretary was imposed on the union, whilst Marcelino Vásquez was arrested 12 times and all the other leaders were treated with violence, some beaten, and government thugs had threatened to kill them. The complainants state that many trade union leaders opposed to the regime are held in prison and that any union leader opposing the present practices is deported. The complainants also state that the union premises are still occupied by the police and that those of other unions, such as the Textil Las Minas, FASACO, UNACHOSIN, CEMENTERA, have been taken over and have not been restored.
    5. 313 In a communication of 20 August 1974, the CGT refers to several cases of violation of trade union rights which it refers to the Committee after, it states, having exhausted all channels of appeal without reaching agreement or achieving any action on the part of the Government.
    6. 314 The cases referred to by the complainant are the following:
  • I. The maintenance of police restrictions and administrative intervention in the Stevedores' Union (POASI), including:
    • (a) preventing its members from calling a meeting of the General Assembly, thus paralysing the union's legal and statutory governing bodies;
    • (b) maintaining armed persons on the site, such as squads of armed police;
    • (c) preventing the principal lawful leaders of the union from entering the site, in defiance of their union rights and the fact that they are on the list of working stevedores, and the arrest and imprisonment of these leaders on more than ten occasions;
    • (d) the support given by police and para-police and governmental groups to false union leaders such as Regio Alfonso Andino and Alfonso Romero and others, although they had not been elected or authorised by any assembly, governing body or statutory provision. Andino was said to have shot dead a woman only a few days previously and to have been set free by the Government;
    • (e) the seizure and use of union funds, in defiance of the union statutes, by the General Directorate of Customs and Ports and the Stevedores' Directorate, in collusion with the aforementioned false leaders;
    • (f) the contempt shown by the Government for the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, the highest legal authority in the land, which declared, in accordance with the spirit of Convention No. 87 and the private nature of the unions, that the intervention by the Government, in determining for its own convenience who should or should not be the trade union leaders of POASI, was illegal, and an abuse of power.
  • II. Complicity, arbitrary measures and abuse of the right to union freedoms in the Dulcera Dominicana firm of Bolonotto Hermanos, including:
    • (a) the systematic sacking of 83 union leaders, activists and members, to destroy the organisation which the workers had set up in that firm;
    • (b) the use of the national police to obstruct by repressive measures the exercising of their legal right to strike action to which the workers of that firm had been forced to resort;
    • (c) the granting to the owners of the firm of fire-arms, which were used against the workers;
    • (d) the granting of police services for supervision and repression of union activity by the workers;
    • (e) the signing off of pregnant female workers on account of union activities;
    • (f) complicity with, instead of action against, the manager of the firm, Mr. Constantino Bolonotto, when he tried to murder the Union's General Secretary, José Cristóbal Durán, with a gun;
    • (g) interference against applying the law to the firm, which included the unusual fact that in spite of the law giving a time limit of 5 days for the judges to decide whether or not a strike is legal, 263 days passed after they were informed of the strike without the judges of the San Domingo Court, acting as a labour court, giving their verdict;
    • (h) destruction of the union and substitution for it of leaders and representatives of the firm's administration chosen by the firm in conjunction with governmental representatives.
  • III. Complicity, arbitrary measures and abuse of the law against union freedoms in the following firms: Industrias Dominicanas and Company, Los Navarros and Company and Ray-O-Vac Domiricana Limited, as follows:
    • (a) the sacking in Industrias Dominicanas and Company, of 12 union leaders and active members;
    • (b) the sacking in Los Navarros and Company of 20 union leaders and militants;
    • (c) the sacking in Ray-O-Vac Dominicana Limited of seven union leaders and militants;
    • (d) non-application of the labour laws of the country which sanction the abuse of rights (particularly section V of the Labour Code);
    • (e) police intervention to prevent the exercise of union freedom and repress the workers.
  • IV. The setting up by the Government, through its own officials, of a parallel union in Puerto de Andrés at Boca Chica, including:
    • (a) the recruitment of persons who were ignorant of dock work and the setting up by these persons of a union with the aim of preventing the members of the Stevedores' Union of Puerto de Andrés, Boca Chica, who had been working there for 12 years without a break, from carrying out their duties as employees and exercising their trade union rights.
    • (b) the selection as leaders of the parallel union of persons awaiting trial under Dominican law on charges of misuse of union funds;
    • (c) attempting to deprive real dockworkers of their meagre income, which does not average even 25 dollars a month, with the aim of favouring their own partisans who are not Dockers, ignoring in scandalous fashion the right of workers to increase their income or even maintain it at present levels;
    • (d) the selling of union membership at 50 pesos and more per head within the aforementioned recruitment plan, with the aim of forming a parallel union.
  • Finally, the complainants request that a special mission be sent to investigate and establish on the spot the truth of their complaints.
    1. 315 By a letter of 28 November 1975, a group of trade unionists calling themselves the "majority group" of the POASI union communicated the text of a request addressed on 23 November 1975 to the Secretary of State for Labour regarding the organisation of elections within the union in accordance with the union statutes and the Labour Code.
  • Case No. 802
    1. 316 SINOMAPE alleged, in its letter of 17 September 1974, that the premises of the CGT had been assaulted by the national police and that leaders of the Single Federation of the National District, and of the Union of Workers of the Dominican Petrol Refinery, members of the CGT, had been arrested. The WFTU stated in a communication of 30 September 1974 that these events took place on 15 September 1974 and that the police arrested 43 trade union delegates and leaders of the CGT, including Francisco Antonio Santos, Secretary-General, Dionisio Martinez, Organisation Secretary, and Aquiles Maleno, member of the executive office.
  • Case No. 819
    1. 317 SINOMAPE stated in a letter of 13 June 1975 that three national leaders of the CGT had been arrested on 4 June 1975 and subsequently charged with activities prejudicial to state security. The persons concerned were Francisco A. Santos, Secretary-General (see paragraph 316 above), Julio de Peña Váldez, Training Secretary, and Eugenic Pérez Cepeda, Claims and Disputes Secretary.
    2. 318 The WFTU alleged in a letter of 31 July 1975 that the Government had used the pretext of the disembarkation of guerrillas to take repressive action against the workers' movement. The complainants refer to the arrest on 5 June 1975 of the persons mentioned in the preceding paragraph and states that Francisco Antonio Santos and Eugenic Pérez Cepeda were arrested at the national Police headquarters, where they had gone after arranging an interview with the chief of police with a view to obtaining some information about the arrests of Julio de Peña Váldez and other comrades. In addition, searches took place in the homes of Dionisio Martinez Vargas and Aguiles Maleno (see paragraph 316 above) who were being sought, and the police were closely guarding the head offices of the CGI. The complainants added that the trade union leaders arrested or being searched for had been accused of association with malefactors and subversion. According to the WFTU, these measures were due to the fact that the CGT was active in the defence of workers' rights and aspirations and of the independence and sovereign rights of the nation, which were being infringed by the multinational corporations Gulf and Western, Falconbridge, the Alcoa Exploration Company, the Telephone Company, etc. It was stated that the authorities were keeping these trade union leaders in prison because they wished to make it impossible for the organisation in question to act as champion for the workers' rights and aspirations. The WFTU concluded by proposing that the ILO send a commission to the Dominican Republic to see for itself how matters stand.
    3. 319 The WCL stated in a letter of 20 October 1975 that several trade union leaders had been arrested arbitrarily in August 1975 and that they included Juan Vargas, general secretary of the National Union of Telephone Workers. Efforts to obtain their release had been unsuccessful.
  • Case No. 822
    1. 320 In a communication of 14 November 1974, the WFTU alleged that the peasant leader Florinda Muñoz Soriano had been shot dead by an overseer of landowner Pablo Diaz at Hato Viejo. According to the complainant, Florinda Muñoz Soriano was the original leader of the Federation of Christian Peasants' League, member of the Latin American Peasants' Federation, the CLAT and the WFTU, and was leader of 500 workers and their families who were refusing to give up under pressure from landowner Pablo Diaz land which they had possessed for over a century. On 1 November, whilst carrying out farm duties, she was killed with a shotgun by an overseer of landowner Pablo Diaz. The latter was also a contractor to the Government and, according to the Autonomous Confederation of Christian Trade Unions, he used armed guards to repress persons in the Hato Viejo area by force.
    2. 321 The complainant added, in a letter of 16 July 1975, that many trade union leaders had been arrested, amongst them 17 peasant militants' belonging to the Dominican Federation of Christian Peasants' Leagues (a member of the Autonomous Confederation of Christian Trade Unions) and the Organising Secretary of the Union of the Central Azucarera Caterey (also a member of the CASC). On 5 July 1975, continued the WFTU, Dionisio Frias, peasants' trade union leader, was assassinated by landowner Virgilio Febes. This crime occurred in the district of El Cuey, in the province of Seygo.
  • Replies from the Government
    1. 322 In its communication of 10 January 1975, the Government merely stated that the allegations made by SINOMAPE and the National Portworkers' Federation were false and tendentious and were designed merely to give a false image of the Dominican Republic for political purposes. It certified that Convention No. 87 was fully applied as regards trade union rights. The Government added, in two telegrams of 8 July 1975, that the unions enjoyed full trade union freedoms throughout the national territory, that they could set up the organisations of their choice without any distinction or prior authorisation and that they elected their leaders in accordance with their statutes and without governmental intervention.
    2. 323 The Government stated, in a letter of 20 February 1976, that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were fully respected in its country and that workers were free to set up their organisations and elect their representatives. They must merely comply with the provisions of Volume 5 of the Labour Code (concerning trade unions) and with the administrative provisions set out in resolutions Nos. 8/64 (establishing and regulating the registration of trade unions), 15/64 (relating to the creation of Confederations) and 37/64 (to the effect that general assemblies, in order to set up a union, elect officers, etc., have to be certified by an inspector of the Labour Department).
    3. 324 Regarding Case No. 672, the Government stated that it did not take action against any trade union leader for his union activities and that if any official had been deprived of his freedom, it was for violation of laws in respect of public order or for common law offences.
    4. 325 Regarding Case No. 768, the Government stated that the POASI union convened an ordinary general assembly, in accordance with its statutes, to elect its officers. These elections took place on 27 March 1973, under the supervision of officials of the Labour Department, and there had been no incident of any type. The officials reported that the ballot had taken place quite normally and that the list headed by Domingo Suero had been elected. The Government added that it had never intervened and would never intervene in the internal affairs of a union and that it had never impeded trade union activities. Concerning the allegations regarding the enterprise Dulcera Dominicana of Hermanos Bolonotto and Company, the Government stated that the union of that enterprise was conducting its work normally, in accordance with the law, and enjoyed facilities made available by the employer for its meetings. According to the Government, it was untrue that dismissals took place in order to break up the union; when the enterprise ended the contract of a worker, it did so strictly in accordance with the law. Regarding the other allegations made in this case, the Government considered that they were unworthy of comment as they were inaccurate.
    5. 326 Regarding the Government referred to the observations summarised in the preceding paragraphs.
    6. 327 Regarding Case No. 819, the Government pointed out in two communications, of 9 and 13 February 1976, that the trade union leaders mentioned in the complaints had been free for over two months.
    7. 328 Regarding the allegations made in Case No. 822, the Government stated, in its communication of 20 February 1976, that the courts had held several hearings in respect of the homicide case concerning Florinda Muñoz Soriano and that the case was still pending.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

B. B. The Committee's conclusions
  • Committee's Conclusions
    1. 329 In accordance with the decision taken by the Governing Body at its 175th Session (May 1969), the Director-General is empowered to ascertain - without, however, being obliged to examine their merits - whether the observations of governments on a complaint or their replies to requests from the Committee for additional information are sufficient to permit the Committee to examine the case and, if not, to write direct to the government concerned, in the name of the Committee, and without waiting for its next session, to inform it that it would be desirable if it were to furnish some precise information concerning the points raised by the complainants or the Committee. In application of this rule of procedure, the Director-General requested the Dominican Government, by a letter of 12 March 1976, to be good enough to indicate, in connection with Case No. 819, the reasons for the detention of trade unions leaders Francisco Antonio Santos, Julio Pérez Cepeda, Julio de Peña Valdés and Juan Vargas, and whether these persons appeared before the courts prior to their release. The Government has not yet provided information on this point.
    2. 330 The Committee has to deal with a situation which raises important problems as regards the basic principles of freedom of association and which seem to affect numerous Dominican unions. The complaints have been received from several national and international trade union organisations and contain allegations regarding the arrest or even death of trade unionists (or attempted murder), the occupation of trade union offices, intervention by the public authorities in internal union matters (particularly in trade union elections and the use of union funds), attempts to break up unions (particularly by the dismissal of trade unionists and the creation of a parallel union), impediments to the legal exercise of the right to strike.
    3. 331 Although the Government has submitted comments and information on several of these allegations, the Committee possesses insufficient information to enable it to reach conclusions regarding the substance of the various issues raised. It should be recalled that the Committee has already examined, on several occasions, cases concerning the Dominican Republic which contain allegations similar to those made in the present case. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it would be very useful to apply the "direct contacts" procedure which has been used on several occasions in the past and is described in paragraphs 20 and 21 of its 127th Report.

The Committee's recommendations

The Committee's recommendations
  • Geneva, 27 May 1976 (Signed) Roberto Ago, Chairman.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer