Interim Report - Report No 209, June 1981

Case No 763 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 03-JUL-73 - Closed

COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE OBSERVANCE BY URUGUAY OF 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), PRESENTED BY A NUMBER OF DELEGATES TO THE 61st SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (1976) UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ILO

• COMPLAINT CONCERNING THE OBSERVANCE BY URUGUAY OF 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), PRESENTED BY A NUMBER OF DELEGATES TO THE 61st SESSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (1976) UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ILO
  5. 5 A number of trade union organisations, including the World Federation of Labour (WCL) and the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), have presented allegations of violations of freedom of association in Uruguay. In addition, three delegates to the 61st Session of the International Labour Conference (June 1976) presented a complaint under article 26 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation to the effect that the Government of Uruguay was not securing the effective observance of 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). Both of these instruments have been ratified by Uruguay.
  6. 6 The Committee has examined the present case on several occasions. At its February 1980 Session, the Committee examined all aspects of this case, at which time it presented an interim report to the Governing Body.
  7. 7 Since that time, the complainant organisations have sent the following communications: the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (23 May, 25 September and 26 November 1980), the National Workers' Convention of Uruguay (CNT) (15 May, 14 July, 17 November and 3 December 1980), the World Confederation of Labour (19 September 1980), and the General Confederation of workers of Uruguay (19 March 1981). In addition, on 25 May 1981, the Office received a communication from the ICFTU containing an annex of comments made by the Legal Service of the National Committee of Trade Union Rights of Uruguay.
  8. 8 The Government has sent information in communications of 7 May 1980, 25 August 1980, 12 February, and 12, 18 and 20 May 1981.
  9. 9 The Committee on Freedom of Association, at its March 1980 Session, empowered the Chairman to examine with the representatives of the Government of Uruguay on the Governing Body appropriate means of arriving at a rapid and satisfactory solution of the questions raised in the examination of this case.
  10. 10 The Chairman of the Committee on Freedom of Association held discussions with representatives of the Uruguayan Government, and on 14 May 1980 the Government of Uruguay sent a communication to the Director-General of the ILO in which it requested the establishment of direct contacts "so as to be able to consider in a broader manner the different subjects of common interest that are being examined".
  11. 11 The Director-General, as he had done in 1975 and 1977, when direct contacts took place with the Government of Uruguay, designated Professor Philippe Cahier as his representative to carry out this new mission at the beginning of January 1981. He was accompanied by Mr. Manuel Araoz, Chief of the Freedom of Association Branch. The Committee on Freedom of Association was informed of this at its November 1980 Session.
  12. 12 The mission took place in Uruguay, as planned, from 3 to 11 January 1981.
  13. 13 While in Montevideo, the representative of the Director-General was received by the President of the Republic, Dr. Aparicio Méndez, with whom he reviewed the different problems which were the subject of the mission. The representative of the Director-General had three meetings with the minister of Labour and Social Security, Dr. Carlos A. Maeso, during which he was able to examine in detail all the questions which were the subject of the mission. The following persons were present at these meetings: Under-Secretary, Mr. M. Malvasio, the Chief of the Labour Office of the GHQ of the Armed Forces, Mr. Alonzo, two members of the staff of the Office, Messrs d'Andrea and Olivera, and the counsellor of the Minister of Labour, Dr. Jorge Alvarez Olloniego. The representative of the Director-General was also received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Minister, Mr. Adolfo Folle Martinez, at the Ministry of the Interior by the Minister, General Nuñez, the Under-Secretary, Mr. Jorge Amondarain, and the Director-General of the police, Colonel Castiglione. The representative of the Director-General visited the Supreme Military Tribunal, where he was received by the President, Colonel Federico Silva Ledesma, and was able to examine all the files he wished to consult concerning convicted trade unionists. Having requested permission from the competent authorities to interview five trade unionists, who were serving their sentences, in prison and having obtained this authorisation, the representative of the Director-General was able to interview personally, without any outside witnesses present, Messrs. Luis Alberto Iquini Ferreira, Carlos Maria Aristondo Pereira, Rosario Pietraroia Zapala, Hernando José Marrero Fuentes and Luis Enrique Vifias Cotrofe. The representative of the Director-General also visited trade unionists who had previously been detained but who were now at liberty.
  14. 14 As concerns employers, the representative of the Director-General met the President and other leaders of the Chamber of Industries, and also the President and leaders of the National Chamber of Commerce. He also went to the Chamber of Commercial Products of the country, where he had interviews with its President and the Managing Committee.
  15. 15 The representative of the Director-General also had long discussions with the leaders of trade unions of different tendencies, most of whom he had already met during his previous visits. It is thus that in Montevideo he saw separately, and more than once, the leaders of seven organisations which were affiliated with the National Workers' Convention (CNT), before that organisation was dissolved by the Government in 1973, and also leaders of two autonomous trade unions. He also met the President, the Secretary-General and other leaders of the General Confederation of Workers of Uruguay (CGTU), the President and the Secretary-General of the Trade Union Action of Uruguay (ASU), the leaders of an organisation which had been created recently (CATUD), as well as the representatives of the National Commission of Trade Union Rights (CNDS). He was also able to talk with a lawyer who is a specialist in trade union law. Lastly, he received written communications from six other trade unions.
  16. 16 In his report on the mission, the representative of the Director-General noted the courtesy accorded to him by the governmental authorities, and indicated that the facilities offered to him were better than during his previous visits. As soon as he arrived in the country, the Minister of Labour and Social Security told him that all the necessary facilities would be made available, and stressed that the Government wished to provide frank and sincere assistance. A rapid and satisfactory response was given to all his requests for interviews and for information. In this regard, the action of Dr. Jorge Alvarez Olloniego, assigned by the Government to facilitate these contacts, was most effective.
  17. 17 Thanks to the co-operation he received from all the persons he was in touch with, particularly the employers' and workers' organisations, and the great interest they took in the mission, the representative of the Director-General was able to compile the information and viewpoints which served as the basis for this report.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• I. Occupational Associations Act
  18. 18 Concerning this aspect of the case, the representative of the Director-General in his report on the mission indicates that the Committee on Freedom of Association has stated over a period of several years that it considers it urgent that trade unions should be enabled, both in law and in practice, to conduct their activities, without hindrance, this being the necessary condition for the establishment of a system of harmonious labour relations in Uruguay. Consequently, the Committee has considered that the adoption and the coming into force of new legislation on trade unions should constitute a decisive step to this end, and it has followed developments on this important question with great interest.
  19. 19 During the 1977 mission of the representative of the Director-General, government circles indicated that the trade union situation prevalent in the country was to be considered as temporary, and that the creation of joint Committees should be considered as a first step towards the promulgation of trade union legislation. It was also indicated to him that the Government was in the process of studying the basic principles of the trade union legislation, without specifying the date when the legislation would finally be adopted.
  20. 20 In November 1978 the Government communicated to the Committee the preliminary draft of an Occupational Associations Bill.
  21. 21 In February 1979 the Committee examined the provisions of the preliminary draft; while noting that it contained certain positive features, such as the right to form occupational associations without previous authorisation, and to form federations and Confederations, the Committee nevertheless made comments on several provisions of the preliminary draft which were not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. These comments were made in order that the provisions in question might be re-examined, so that the future legislation would be in conformity with these principles and with the freedom of association Conventions ratified by Uruguay.
  22. 22 In May 1979, the Committee took note of a statement by the Government to the effect that the Committee's comments on the preliminary draft Bill would be taken into account in the preparation of the definitive text, which would be submitted to the State Council; for this purpose both the workers' and the employers' organisations were being consulted.
  23. 23 In November 1979, the Committee considered it timely to repeat that after six years of serious restrictions on trade union activities there was a very urgent need to promulgate and implement legislation which recognised the right for workers, without any distinction whatsoever, to set up occupational organisations, and the right of these organisations to function and operate freely, in accordance with the Conventions on freedom of association.
  24. 24 In February 1980, the Committee examined the Occupational Associations Bill, which the executive power had submitted to the State Council on 17 December 1979. At that time, the Committee noted that this Bill varied very little from the preliminary draft, and it recalled the points of divergence with the ILO Conventions and the amendments which needed to be made; they may be summarised as follows:
      • (a) to provide for the possibility of forming occupational associations at both the enterprise and the industrial level;
      • (b) among the conditions of eligibility of trade union leaders, to eliminate the requirements of a declaration of "democratic faith" (section 5(c)), and that leaders must have belonged to the particular trade union for at least two years (section 5(d));
      • (c) to delete the obligatory voting in elections and plebiscites (sections 15(d) and 25);
      • (d) to limit the broad powers of the public authorities to require reports on trade union activities (section 22(a));
      • (e) to delete the maximum duration laid down for trade union assemblies (section 24);
      • (f) to delete section 26 (obligatory organisation of a plebiscite to examine draft collective agreements and in other cases provided for by regulations);
      • (g) to delete section 27 (suspension of membership of a member who has not taken part in a vote);
      • (h) to delete section 28 (lower-level trade unions are responsible, except in certain cases, for decisions taken by higher-level organisations to which they are affiliated).
  25. 25 With these considerations in mind, at its February 1980 Session the Committee expressed its firm hope that its comments would be taken into account in the final version of the law, and asked the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.
  26. 26 During his first conversation with the Minister of Labour and Social Security, and in later meetings, the representative of the Director-General drew his attention to the fact that it was not only urgent that the Bill be enacted as soon as possible, but also that it was necessary that the future law be in conformity with the obligations laid down in the International Labour Conventions ratified by Uruguay. The Minister informed the representative of the Director-General that although the Bill was still before the State Council for adoption as soon as this legislative body resumed its session, that is to say after 15 March, it would immediately examine the Bill so that it would in any event be enacted in the first half of 1981 and very probably before 15 May. Regarding amendments to the Bill, without wishing to prejudge the attitude of the State Council, the Minister stated that his Government was fully conscious of its obligations under international treaties to which it had adhered. Consequently, in his opinion, the definitive text of the Act would be adjusted to the maximum to the ILO Conventions on freedom of association which his country had ratified. He added that he had already intervened to this end, and would continue to do so, before the State Council, and more specifically before the Labour and Social Security Commission, where the Bill was at present. Lastly, the Minister stated that once the Occupational Associations Act had been promulgated, the Government would proceed to the elaboration of a law to regulate strikes.
  27. 27 In the employers' circles, the representative of the Director-General was informed that, for the sake of the country's future, the adoption of the Occupational Associations Bill was considered necessary, but that it was very important that the Act should lay down safeguards to ensure that these associations functioned in conformity with democratic principles, and were not transformed into instruments of activity contrary to the national interest.
  28. 28 The mission report indicates that on the workers' side opinions are more varied; a distinction should be made, on the one hand, between the content of the Bill and, on the other, the desirability of its rapid adoption. On the first point, there is general agreement that the Committee on Freedom of Association has indicated the points on which changes should be made. However, the trade unions consider that there are important gaps in the Bill. In the first place, it does deal with the right to organise of civil servants. On this point the Government maintains the opinion expressed before the Committee that this right is covered by section 27 of the 1943 Civil Servants Statute. The workers also consider that the Bill should have dealt with the right to strike, which is recognised by article 57 of the Constitution. Finally, they consider it indispensable for the regularisation of trade union life to regulate the question of trade union immunity and the compulsory deduction of trade union membership dues from wages ("check-off"). As to the desirability of adopting legislation on occupational associations as soon as possible, a number of trade union leaders, among them those of the CGTU, consider that, with the amendments suggested by the Committee on Freedom of Association, this legislation can only contribute towards normalisation of trade union life. Other trade union leaders, generally connected with the CNT, are more sceptical regarding the necessity of adopting new trade union legislation, although, like all other workers, they wish to see the principles and provisions of the ILO Conventions on freedom of association govern the trade union activities of the country as soon as possible.
  29. 29 Without claiming to arrive at a final conclusion on this problem, the report of the representative of the Director-General states that, if one compares the situation in 1981 with that which prevailed in 1977, the moment has arrived (and on this point it seems that the Government, the employers and large sections of the workers agree) to adopt, as soon as possible, trade union legislation which will constitute a significant step forward if it does not contain divergences from the principles and provisions of the ILO Conventions on the matter, and if in the near future steps are taken to regulate important trade union issues not covered by the Occupational Associations Bill.
  30. 30 The ICFTU's communication of 20 May 1981 refers to the earlier Bill which the Committee already examined at its earlier meetings. According to this communication the Bill did not cover the right to strike and protection of trade union leaders (fuero sindical).
  31. 31 By a communication dated 18 May 1981, the Government states that the Occupational Associations Act was passed by the State Council on 12 May 1981; the text is annexed.
  32. 32 The Committee notes the adoption of the Occupational Associations Act. Having examined it, the Committee observes that important improvements have been introduced in respect of the provisions of the Bill on which the Committee had made comments. Thus, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the following provisions of the Bill were deleted: the obligation to make a declaration of "democratic faith" in order to be eligible as a trade union leader; the obligatory voting in elections and plebiscites; the limitation of the maximum duration of trade union assemblies; the obligatory organisation of a plebiscite to examine draft collective agreements and in other cases provided for by regulations; and suspension of membership of those who have not taken part in a vote. The Committee also notes that the new Act limits the broad powers of the authorities to require of reports on trade union activities, and that the lower-level trade unions are not responsible for decisions taken by higher-level organisations to which they are affiliated. The Committee notes, however, that the Occupational Associations Act does not refer to the possibility of forming occupational associations at both the enterprise and the industrial level, and it requires a worker to have belonged to the particular trade union for two years in order to be considered eligible for trade union office, except in the case of a new occupational association in accordance with the new Act, or of one which adjusts to the new Act from the date it enters into force (section 5(c) of the Act); this does not fully conform to the principles of freedom of association.
  33. 33 As regards public servants, the Government had stated that they enjoy the right to organise under the Civil Servants Statute of 1943.
  34. 34 The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures so that the legislation will explicitly recognise the possibility of forming occupational associations at the enterprise and the industrial levels, and will repeal the requirement, in certain cases, of two years' membership of the trade union as a condition of eligibility to trade union office. The Committee also trusts that the regulations to be issued under the Act will be in full conformity with the obligations arising under the freedom of association Conventions ratified by Uruguay and that other legislative measures will deal with the exercise of the right to strike and will ensure the protection of trade union leaders against any act of anti-union discrimination. The Committee considers that it should draw the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this aspect of the case, so that it may continue to examine it.
• II. Arrests and detentions
  35. 35 As regards detention of trade union officials, at its February 1980 Session, the Committee noted with interest that certain trade union leaders had been released; expressed its concern over the fact that several persons had had to wait for a considerable time to be tried by the courts; it had called the Government's attention, in particular, to the principle that any person arrested should be subject to normal judicial procedure and should be brought before the appropriate judge without delay; and it had asked the Government to continue to supply information on the situation of the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants.
  36. 36 By a communication of 3 December 1980, the National Workers' Convention of Uruguay sent a list of detained trade unionists. The Government, for its part, in a communication of 12 February 1981, described the present situation of the persons mentioned by the complainant.
  37. 37 During the mission, the representative of the Director-General had occasion to examine with the competent authorities the questions related to detentions and arrests.
  38. 38 As regards persons detained for a few hours or a few days for questioning without being charged subsequently, the representative of the Director-General, during the contacts which took place in 1977, was able to note a reduction in this type of arrests, some of which seemed to have been the consequence of trade union activities. However, the number of such arrests had remained relatively high, and could be interpreted, in some cases, as a means of intimidating the trade union movement as a whole. Since then, and particularly in the 1979 through 1980 period, the situation seems to have improved. According to trade unionists of different tendencies with whom the representative of the Director-General spoke, arrests due to trade union activities were entirely exceptional and the situation was in no way comparable to that which prevailed in 1975 and 1977. However, as was pointed out to the representative of the Director-General, on the occasion of 1 May 1980, a few arrests did take place, either of workers who did not report for work, or of those who took part in a commemorative mass, which, in the Minister of Labour's opinion, had taken on a political overtone. These persons were released shortly thereafter. In addition, leaders of the Association of Bank Employees were arrested on 29 April 1980, for publishing a document, which had been sent to the authorities, in which the trade union criticised the law which suppressed 1 May as a holiday. These persons were detained by the police for a period lasting from one day to one week, after which they were released. Consequently, it seems that, on this point, the Government's attitude has changed appreciably.
  39. 39 Turning to those who have been prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment, in the first place a three-fold improvement can be observed: the delays between arrests and sentences have been considerably shortened, the number of persons detained also seems to have been reduced, as does the number of persons who have recently been prosecuted.
  40. 40 Regarding the first point, the representative of the Director-General had indicated in his 1977 report, that the military penal procedure was very slow. Indeed, an examination of the list of detainees annexed to his mission report showed that only a small number of them had been convicted, although most of the arrests occurred in 1974 and 1975.
  41. 41 According to the representative of the Director-General, the situation appears different today almost all the detainees had been tried at first instance, and the majority on appeal. The procedure itself has been greatly accelerated.
  42. 42 As regards this procedure, the report of the mission also refers to the defence of the detainees, and to the results of appeals. As was mentioned in the report of 1977, the majority of the accused were defended by civilian lawyers. The situation has changed since then. A review of the files (and this was also confirmed by the President of the Supreme Military Tribunal), shows that in almost all cases the defence was conducted by a military officer. According to the government authorities, the reason for this is financial, since most of the accused could not afford the costs of a civilian defence. According to other sources, civilian defence counsel had been encountering difficulties in accomplishing their functions. Whatever the explanation may be, the representative of the Director-General observed in examining some files that the role of the defence was very limited, since for the most part the defence counsel had limited himself to expressing the view that the penalty requested was an exaggerated one. People interviewed by the representative of the Director-General also told him that their contacts with their military defence lawyers were practically non-existent.
  43. 43 Regarding the results of appeals, which under article 489 of the Military Penal Procedure Code are automatic, in examining 17 cases, the representative of the Director-General observed a slight tendency to increase the penalties pronounced at first instance. Thus penalties were increased in five cases; in seven cases the penalties imposed at first instance were confirmed, in two cases the penalties were reduced, and in three cases the judgement had not yet been given. In the opinion of the President of the Supreme Military Court, the explanation for the increase in penalties resides in the discovery of new grounds for conviction between the first instance and the appeal.
  44. 44 According to information which the representative of the Director-General obtained from the Supreme Military Court, there has been a reduction recently in the number of persons detained during their trial, or following their conviction, irrespective of whether they were in some way associated with the trade union movement.
  45. 45 The representative of the Director-General did not obtain a detailed breakdown of the grounds for releases, although some of them were of people who have completed their sentence. In examining the 17 cases mentioned above, he did however observe some cases of early release. In one case, the person in question had been freed after 18 months of imprisonment, and even though he was subsequently sentenced to four years' imprisonment he remained free on probation. In other cases the period of detention pending trial made it possible to release the persons concerned when they were sentenced to an equivalent period of imprisonment, even though the court of appeal had not yet examined the case.
  46. 46 Finally, under the legislation, a convicted person can apply for release on parole after serving half of his sentence. However, the representative of the Director-General did not learn of any cases where this had happened.
  47. 47 At times, people are kept in prison under urgent security measures even after having served their sentence. The representative of the Director-General learned of two such cases, in which the people concerned were later released.
  48. 48 The number of new detentions following trial has substantially diminished. This was confirmed to the representative of the Director-General on all sides. Some attribute it to the beginnings of liberalisation, whereas others find the explanation in the fact that most of the people more or less closely involved in the 1973 events have already been tried and convicted.
  49. 49 Regarding the grounds of conviction, the representative of the Director-General indicated in his 1977 report that: (1) according to the Government no one had been prosecuted for their trade union activities, but for subversive activities carried on under the cover of trade union activities; (2) the examination of a number of files had enabled him to conclude that the criminal prosecutions were in fact directed against political activities, which the Government considered dangerous to public order, and also that some of the accusations arose out of the CNT's activities following its dissolution in 1973, which were therefore considered by the Government to be illegal.
  50. 50 After having again examined a number of files, the representative of the Director-General considers that the conclusions reached in his 1977 report remain valid in 1980. Since he could not examine the files of all the persons mentioned in the complaint, he asked to see about 15 of them, which he was able to consult at the Supreme Military Tribunal.
  51. 51 The majority of the files examined relate to charges of assistance to subversive organisations, participation in subversive organisations, and attacks on the Constitution, all falling under section 60 of the Military Penal Code. All the persons whose files he examined were members of the Communist Party.
  52. 52 In two of the cases examined, the charges referred to terrorist activities: a bomb explosion and an armed attack. Six other cases concerned activities in favour of the Communist Party: secret meetings, collection of funds etc. Two of these persons have been freed, one of them after having served a five-year sentence, and the other on probation. One case refers to accusations arising out of prohibited political activities, and also to activities relating to a trade union following its dissolution. Finally, five other persons were convicted for activities connected with CNT after its dissolution: secret meetings, collection of funds, distribution of bulletins, etc. Two of them are free, one on parole and the other on probation.
  53. 53 The representative of the Director-General was able to talk to five detainees in prison. Contrary to what happened last time, these interviews took place without any representative of the authorities present. Two of the detainees he visited indicated that they had been ill but had recovered now. They all confirmed that they received good medical assistance. He was generally informed by sources of different tendencies that convicted persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment were not ill-treated in the places in which they served their sentence. However, this does not exclude psychological pressure, occasional bullying, and rather frequent sanctions, such as deprivation of daily exercise for minor breaches of the rules.
  54. 54 After the representative of the Director-General had completed his mission, the Government sent a communication dated 12 February 1981, containing full information on the 139 persons, who, according to the complainants, were in detention. This information indicated that 77 of them had been convicted and were still in detention, 8 were presently on trial, 8 were still being sought, 7 were on probation, 15 have been released and 14 had been neither detained nor tried. Finally, the Government requested supplementary information on 10 of them.
  55. 55 The Committee observes, concerning the arrests for periods lasting from a few hours to a few days for questioning that, according to the report on the mission which took place in Uruguay from 3 to 11 January 1981, the situation seems to have improved since the last mission in 1977, and that, according to trade unionists of many different tendencies with whom the representative of the Director-General spoke, arrests of this type are very rare and the situation is in no way comparable to that which prevailed in 1975 and 1977.
  56. 56 As regards persons detained during their trial or sentenced to terms of imprisonment, the Committee notes that the representative of the Director-General found that there had been improvements in three respects: the delays between arrests and sentences have been considerably shortened; the number of persons detained has been reduced, as has the number of persons who have recently been prosecuted. The Committee notes, in particular, that almost all the detainees have been tried at first instance, and the majority on appeal, and finally, that the trial procedure has been greatly accelerated.
  57. 57 The Committee notes that in almost all the trials, the defence was entrusted to a military officer, that the examination of a number of files revealed that the role of the defence was very limited, and that the persons interviewed indicated that contacts with their military defence lawyers had been practically nonexistent.
  58. 58 The Committee observes also that under section 489 of the Code on Military Procedure appeals are automatic, and that the representative of the Director-General observed a slight tendency to increase the penalties pronounced at first instance. According to the President of the Supreme Military Court, this is due to the discovery of new grounds for conviction.
  59. 59 The Committee notes that recently the number of persons detained during trial or following conviction irrespective of whether they were associated with the trade union movement, has been reduced.
  60. 60 The Committee notes that, at times, under urgent security measures, people are kept in prison even after having served their sentence.
  61. 61 The Committee notes that the representative of the Director-General obtained permission to examine the files on the detainees' trials, and that he was able to meet several detainees in prison in the absence of any representatives of the authorities on the other hand, the Committee notes that the detainees said they received good medical assistance, and that sources of all tendencies stated that persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment were not ill-treated, which, however, did not exclude psychological pressure, occasional bullying and sanctions for minor breaches of the rules.
  62. 62 The Committee has examined the Government's communication of 12 February 1981, in which it sent further information on the list of 139 persons, who according to the complainants, were in detention. This information indicated that 77 of them had been convicted and were still in detention, 8 were being tried, 8 were still being sought, 7 were on probation, 15 had been released and 14 had neither been detained nor tried. The Government requested supplementary information on 10 of them.
  63. 63 From the information examined, the Committee notes that the number of persons detained for trade union reasons, has been reduced in recent years, and particularly the number of those recently prosecuted. The Committee also notes that of the 139 detained persons mentioned by the National Workers' Convention of Uruguay, 77 are still serving their sentences, and 36 have been released in some form or another. Concerning the penal procedure, the Committee has noted that appeals are automatic, in virtue of section 489 of the Military Penal Procedure, and at times may lead to increases in penalties, whereas in other cases, through the use of urgent security measures, detainees continue to be held in prison even after having served their sentences. Furthermore, the report of the mission refers to some cases in which the detainees' contacts with their lawyers were practically non-existent.
  64. 64 In these circumstances, in view of the time which has elapsed since the majority of the detainees and convicted persons were deprived of their freedom, and in view of the convictions which were based on trade union reasons, in particular - as indicated in the report of the representative of the Director-General activities associated with the National Workers' Convention of Uruguay after its dissolution (secret meetings, collection of funds, distribution of bulletins, etc.) - the Committee considers that the release of the persons who are detained for these reasons is a necessary condition to the harmonious development of labour relations and requests the Government to take measures in this direction and to inform it in this regard.
• III. Other allegations
  65. 65 In its letter of May 1979, the WFTU stated that in certain cases the workers who requested the setting up of joint Committees were being subjected to pressure and persecution. In this regard the complainant mentioned particularly the "Aurora" textile factory and the undertaking "Banco Comercial".
  66. 66 The WFTU further stated that some trade union premises had been closed and occupied by government bodies. The WFTU mentioned the case of the National Trade Union of Construction Workers and Allied Trades (SUNCA), whose premises had apparently become the barracks of the grenadier guards, of the National Union of Workers in the Metal and Allied Trades (UNTRMA) whose premises had apparently become the headquarters of the Police Section 12, of the National Workers' Convention (CNT), whose premises had apparently become a centre for the women police of Montevideo (and whose equipment, paid for by the workers was being used by Department No. 6 of the police), the case of the Meat Workers' Federation, the use of whose premises had been requested by the Montevideo Police Commissioner of Section No. 24, the case of the Federation of Teachers, Secondary School Teachers' Section, whose premises had also, according to the complainant, become paramilitary installations.
  67. 67 The WFTU also refers to dismissals taking place on the basis of Institutional Act No. 7; 40 members of the staff of the Clínicas Hospital were thus dismissed in January 1979.
  68. 68 For its part, the National Workers' Convention alleged in a letter of September 1979, that on 26 July 1979, the prefecture of the police of Montevideo had notified the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU), that it was deprived of legal personality, in conformity with Decree No. 622/973 of 1 August 1973.
  69. 69 At its February 1980 Session, the Committee noted that the Government had just sent, on 18 January 1980, certain observations on these allegations, and therefore adjourned its examination of them.
  70. 70 In a communication of 19 March 1981, the Confederation of Workers of Uruguay (CGTU) alleged that Joaquin Peschera and Juan Gros had been dismissed by the undertaking Urreta S.A.; they had been entrusted by the Regional Co-ordinator of the CGTU, with initiating activities aimed at organising the workers of the undertaking.
  71. 71 In its communication of 18 January 1980, the Government had expressed its concern to accelerate the procedure for the establishment of joint Committees, but stated that their formation and functioning had been left entirely to the will of the employers and workers. As concerns the alleged pressure and persecution of the joint Committees in the undertakings "Banco Comercial" and "Aurora", the Government states that the complainant neither mentioned concrete facts nor offered solid evidence. On the other hand, it emerges from the report of the mission of the representative of the Director-General that the joint Committees, in which at one time great hopes were placed, had finally received neither from the workers nor from the employers the support which had been expected.
  72. 72 In its communications of 18 January 1980 and 12 February 1981, the Government refers to the allegations concerning the closing of the premises of trade unions, and their occupation by the state bodies. The Government's information discloses that the National Union of Workers in the Metal and Allied Trades (UNTRMA), the National Trade Union of Construction Workers and Allied Trades (SUNCA), and the Uruguayan Federation of Teachers, were declared illegal and dissolved respectively in 1973 and 1974, because of their association with the Communist Party and the CNT. For this reason, their premises were closed and their assets confiscated. These organisations; according to the Government, have neither a de jure nor a de facto legal status, and thus have no legal right to own assets. Concerning the Association of Electricity and Telecommunications Workers (AUTE), the Government states that their premises, presently closed and abandoned, are at the disposal of the authorities to be designated by the workers. Finally, when in Uruguay, the representative of the Director-General was informed that the premises of the Meat Federation were open.
  73. 73 As regards the January 1979 dismissals of 40 members of the staff of Clínicas Hospital, which took place on the basis of Institutional Act No. 7, in its communication of 18 January 1980, the Government qualifies these allegations as vague, since they give neither the names of the dismissed persons, nor precise information regarding the trade union activities of the persons concerned, nor indications that these were a determining factor in the alleged dismissals.
  74. 74 In his mission report, the representative of the Director-General indicates that since the adoption of Institutional Act No. 7 (27 June 1977), dismissals of public administration employees are allowed for reasons of suppression or reorganisation of services, or for reasons of public interest. In the latter case, according to the Act, the decision to dismiss is discretionary. On the other hand, the mission report of the representative of the Director-General, in dealing with this aspect of the case, does not exclude the possibility that certain dismissals may have been for trade union reasons. According to the Ministry of Labour, in a three-year period, only 36 persons were dismissed.
  75. 75 As regards the situation of the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU), the Government indicates in its communication of 18 January 1980, that Decree No. 622/73 establishes a series of requirements necessary for registration which automatically confers legal personality. AEBU did not fulfil any of these requirements and for that reason does not enjoy legal personality. On the other hand, the Government states that Decree No. 622/73 will be substantially amended by the future occupational Associations Act. The representative of the Director-General indicates in his mission report that, according to the Ministry of the Interior, the civil personality of the AEBU had been maintained, allowing it to possess and administer assets, so that this organisation was continuing to function normally within the framework of its sporting and cultural activities, notwithstanding the fact that it had been deprived of legal personality, in virtue of Decree No. 622/73.
  76. 76 In its communication of 12 May 1981, the Government states that the CGTU's allegations concerning Messrs. Joaquin Peschera and Juan Gros are unfounded. According to the Government, Mr. Peschera was never dismissed and is continuing to work normally at the undertaking. As regards Mr. Gros, the Government adds, he was dismissed together with other workers, on the basis of the undertaking's decision to reduce personnel for economic reasons, as a consequence of a reduction in sales. Furthermore, the Government states that the undertaking Urreta S.A. was not aware that Mr. Juan Gros was imitating activities aimed at organising the workers of the undertaking, and this was not mentioned by Mr. Juan Gros himself when he went to the State Secretariat to claim the sums owed to him as a result of the termination of his employment relationship.
  77. 77 As concerns the allegations regarding the joint Committees, the Committee observes that the complainant does not refer to concrete facts nor does it provide evidence to support the alleged pressures and persecutions of the workers who requested the formation of joint Committees. In the light of these circumstances, and given the limited interest in these Committees by both the workers and the employers, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
  78. 78 As regards the closing of trade union premises, and their occupation by state bodies, the Committee notes that, according to the mission report, the trade union premises of the Meat Federation are open. The Committee also notes that the confiscation of the assets of the UNTRMA, SUNCA, and of the Uruguayan Federation of Teachers, occurred as a result of the declaration of their illegality and dissolution. The Committee observes that the Government has not stated whether state bodies have taken over these premises as is indicated by the WFTU. In this respect, the Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that the property of dissolved organisations must be distributed between the members of the organisation, or transferred to the organisations which succeed them.
  79. 79 Regarding the dismissals of 40 members of the staff of Clínicas Hospital, the Committee notes from the mission report that certain dismissals may have been for trade union reasons. Consequently, the Committee asks the Government to re-examine the situation of the dismissed persons in order to reinstate those who were dismissed for reasons related to trade union activities.
  80. 80 As regards the allegations relating to the AEBU, the Committee notes that this association was deprived of legal personality because it did not fulfil any of the requirements prescribed in Decree No. 622/73. The Committee observes that, in fact, this association is continuing to function normally by carrying out its cultural and sporting activities. The Committee notes moreover the Government's statement that Decree No. 622/73 will be modified substantially once the Occupational Associations Act is approved. The Committee trusts that, now that the Occupational Associations Act has been passed, the AEBU, as well as the rest of the organisations concerned, will be allowed to reacquire legal personality.
  81. 81 Referring to the dismissals of Messrs. Joaquin Peschera and Juan Gros, workers of the Urreta S.A. undertaking, the Committee notes that the former was never dismissed, and the latter was dismissed together with other workers, as a result of the undertaking's decision to reduce its personnel due to a reduction in its sales. The Committee notes also that the undertaking was not aware that Mr. Gros was initiating activities aimed at organising the workers of the undertaking, and that he himself did not complain of this situation to the State Secretariat, where he went to in order to claim the sums owed to him as a result of the termination of his employment relationship. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 82. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to adopt the present report, and in particular the following conclusions:
   • The Committee notes that a direct contacts mission took place in Uruguay in January 1981.
   • In relation to the trade union legislation, the Committee notes the adoption on 12 May 1981 of the Occupational Associations Act, and observes with satisfaction that following direct contacts important improvements have been introduced to the provisions of the Bill, on which the Committee had made comments. Thus, the Committee notes that the following provisions of the Bill were deleted: the obligation to make a declaration of "democratic faith" in order to be eligible as a trade union leader; the obligatory voting in elections and plebiscites; the limitation of the maximum duration of trade union assemblies; the obligatory organisation of a plebiscite to examine draft collective agreements and in other cases provided for by regulations; and suspension of membership of those who have not taken part in a vote. The Committee also notes that the new Act limits the broad powers of the authorities to require reports on trade union activities, and that the lower-level trade unions are not responsible for decisions taken by higher-level organisations to which they are affiliated. The Committee trusts that the Government will take measures to ensure that the legislation will recognise explicitly the possibility of forming occupational associations at the occupational and the industrial levels, and to repeal the requirement, in certain cases, of two years' membership of a trade union as a condition of eligibility to trade union office. The Committee trusts also that the regulations to be issued under the Act will be in full conformity with the obligations arising under the freedom of association Conventions ratified by Uruguay and that other legislative measures will deal with the exercise of the right to strike and will ensure the protection of trade union leaders against any act of anti-union discrimination. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this aspect of the case, so that it may continue to examine it.
   • In relation to the detentions alleged by the complainants, the Committee notes with interest that some of the trade unionists mentioned by the complainant have already been released, and that during the last few years the number of detainees has been reduced, as has - to a marked extent - the number of new detentions followed by prosecution. Nevertheless, the Committee must also note that in almost all the cases the defence was entrusted to a member of the military. When the representative of the Director-General referred to appeals, he stated that a slight tendency to increase the sentences handed down at first instance could be noted.
   • In view of the time which has elapsed since the majority of the detainees and convicted persons were deprived of their freedom, the Committee considers that their release would be a necessary condition for the harmonious development of labour relations. It therefore requests the Government to take measures for the release of the trade unionists mentioned by the complainants still in prison and asks the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken in this regard.
   • As regards the other allegations:
   • The Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that assets of dissolved organisations should be distributed between the members of the organisation or transferred to the organisations which succeed them.
   • The Committee asks the Government to re-examine the situation of the workers dismissed in January 1979 from the Clínicas Hospital, with a view to reinstating those whose dismissal was based on trade union activities.
   • The Committee trusts that, the occupational Associations Act having been approved, the AEBU, as well as the rest of the organisations concerned, will be able to regain legal personality shortly.
   • Geneva, 28 May 1981. (Signed) Roberto AGO, chairman.