Interim Report - Report No 147, 1975

Case No 717 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 26-JUL-72 - Closed

1. 247. The complaint of the Costa Rican Christian Workers' and Peasants' Confederation (COCC) is contained in a communication dated 26 July 1972 addressed to the Director-General of the ILO.
2. 248. The Committee recalls that, at its meeting in November 1973, it addressed an urgent appeal to the Government to supply its observations on the allegations contained in the complaint, the Government having failed to reply to the repeated requests of the Committee to supply such observations (139th Report, paragraph 7). The Committee also recalls that at its meeting in February 1974, since no reply had been received to its appeal, and in accordance with the rule of procedure contained in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, it informed the Government that it might submit a report on the substance of the matter at its next session even if the observations requested had not been received. By a communication dated 13 May 1974 the Government transmitted its observations on the allegations made in the complaint.
3. 249. Costa Rica has ratified both 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. 250. In its complaint the Costa Rican Christian Workers' and Peasants' Confederation alleges that there is a systematic persecution of trade union leaders in Costa Rica in spite of the provisions in the Labour Code directed against such discrimination. It cites the example of Gilberth Rodriguez Arias, President of the Union of Civil Service Employees (UNESECI). Mr. Rodriguez began trade union activities in 1969 when he was a Class 2 Public Administration Officer in the Personnel Selection Branch of the Public Service Commission and he was responsible in large part for the founding in March 1971 of the UNESECI, of which he was elected President.
2. 251. Just before this, in February 1971, he was transferred to the Recruitment Section and this transfer is alleged to have been both a demotion in real terms and in violation of the Civil Service Statute which provides that no civil servant can be transferred to another position or be given an increased workload for a period of more than two months. It is alleged also that this transfer was motivated by a desire to discourage Mr. Rodriguez from pursuing his trade union activities.
3. 252. During March and April of 1971 there is alleged to have been some friction between Mr. Rodriguez and the management of the Civil Service in relation to hours of work and similar issues. On 18 May of that year the Director of the Civil Service, Mr. Sidney Brautigam Jiménez, sent a note to Mr. Rodriguez in which the latter is accused of prejudicing the Civil Service and those employed in it. Mr. Rodriguez replied to the Director expressing his surprise and explaining that there must have been a serious misunderstanding.
4. 253. The complainants annex to their letter copies of notes sent to the Transport Minister and to the National Association of Public Employees, in which Mr. Brautigam attests to the professional competence of Mr. Rodriguez; they point out that these communications directly contradict the reasons given to Mr. Rodriguez by Mr. Brautigam for the former's transfer to the Recruitment Section several months earlier. In July 1971, Mr. Brautigam proposed transferring Mr. Rodriguez to the Transport Ministry and in spite of petitions by the UNESECI and certain members of the Legislative Assembly explaining that such a transfer would leave the union leaderless, Mr. Rodriguez was sent to the Transport Ministry on 4 October 1971, to a job involving personnel classification which was not his special field.
5. 254. On 28 December 1971, Mr. Rodriguez was once again transferred, this time to the Planning Office where his duties did not correspond at all with his professional qualifications. Finally, on 6 June 1972, he was informed by Mr. Brautigam that as a result of the approval of a Special Budget by the Legislative Assembly, his job had ceased to exist and that he was consequently dismissed.
6. 255. The complainants claim that Mr. Rodriguez has been victimised because of his trade union activities and that the provisions of the Special Budget, reducing the number of positions for persons of Mr. Rodriguez's qualifications from five to four with the consequent dismissal, merely constituted a pretext for getting rid of him so that he could no longer lead the trade union of which he was President.
7. 256. In its communication dated 13 May 1974 the Government points out that an inquiry was initiated in connection with this matter, but that this inquiry was subsequently suspended since the person concerned, having stated that any action would not be productive, declined to produce any documentary evidence. This being the case, continues the Government, it is not possible to establish whether, in reality, any trade union persecution took place as alleged.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 257. The Committee considers it appropriate to recall the observations which it made in paragraph 31 of its First Report, namely, "the purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward".
2. 258. The Committee deplores the fact that despite the lapse of time since the complaint was submitted and the urgency of the requests made by the Committee to the Government to supply its observations on the allegations contained in the complaint, the Government has now submitted a reply which, in the opinion of the Committee, does not contain sufficient information to enable the Committee to reach its conclusions on the matter in full knowledge of the facts.
3. 259. The Committee would draw the attention of the Government to the provisions of Article 11 of Convention No. 87 according to which countries having ratified this Convention (of which Costa Rica is one) undertake to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers, including public servants, may exercise freely the right to organise.
4. 260. The Committee would also stress that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures - and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.,
5. 261. The Committee considers that, in view of the circumstances of the case and the nature of the information now supplied by the Government, before reaching any conclusions on the matter, it would prefer to have any further comments which the complainants might wish to make on the information supplied by the Government. It accordingly recommends that the substance of the Government's reply be transmitted to the complainants for this purpose.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 262. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to recall the observations made by the Committee in its First Report, quoted in paragraph 257 above;
   • (b) to deplore the fact that, despite the lapse of time since the complaint was submitted and the urgency of the repeated requests made by the Committee to the Government to supply its observations, the Government has now submitted a reply which does not contain sufficient information to enable the Committee to reach its conclusions on the matter in full knowledge of the facts;
   • (c) to draw the attention of the Government to the principles and considerations expressed in paragraphs 259 and 260 above; and
   • (d) to decide, for the reasons expressed in paragraph 261 above, to transmit to the complainants the substance of the communication of the Government, dated 13 May 1974, for any further comments they might wish to make thereon.