Interim Report - Report No 153, March 1976

Case No 769 (Nicaragua) - Complaint date: 14-NOV-73 - Closed

1. 270. The complaint from the World Confederation of Labour was submitted in a letter of 14 November 1973. In view of the fact that, despite repeated requests, the Government had not communicated its observations on the complaint, the Committee sent urgent, requests to the Government, in February and in May 1975, to provide the information requested. The Government's observations were received in a communication of 22 July 1975.
2. 271. Nicaragua 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

• Allegations relating to the Closing Down of Two Unions
  272. 272 The complainant states that Nicaraguan employers, with the complicity and support of the Government, are "eliminating" the unions by court action. The complainant quotes the case of the Metasa Metalworkers' Union, with a membership of 600, and that of the Textile Workers' Union.
  273. 273 The Government's reply contains a copy of the court documents in respect of these two cases. These show that in both cases the unions were wound up at the request of the employer concerned and that this action was upheld by the Upper Labour Court.
  274. 274 In the first case, the leaders of the Textile Workers' Union took an active part in a strike initiated in July 1973 in the undertaking Fabritex. According to the court findings, the strikers occupied the undertaking, took control of the main entrance, allowing nobody to enter or leave, and held some persons as hostages until they were freed with the assistance of the National Guard. The labour inspectors acted as mediators in the conflict, but the strikers maintained their position. At the request of the undertaking, the General Labour Inspectorate declared the strike illegal. The judge of first instance also noted the tone used by the trade union leaders with regard to the management of the undertaking and the labour authorities.
  275. 275 This magistrate considered that the facts were in conflict with the objectives of the union as set out in its statutes (in particular, to consult with the employers having regard for justice, mutual respect and subjection to the law, ensure application of the labour laws and regulations, conclude collective agreements and protect by due legal process the rights deriving from them) and in the Labour Code. According to the findings, the facts were also incompatible with the ban placed on the unions and their members by the trade unions regulations and the Labour Code, forbidding them to provoke, declare or support an illegal strike, and to use violence, force or other illegal methods in support of their claims. It is also stated in the findings that the union and its members had violated the provisions of the Labour Code to the effect that a strike must be limited to a suspension of work, to the exclusion of all coercion and violence against persons or property.
  276. 276 In closing down the union, the findings then refer to the legal provisions authorising this measure, particularly in cases where a union diverges from the objectives indicated in its statutes in order to exercise a political activity, and in cases provided for in the statutes. These findings were upheld by the Upper Labour Court, although two judges dissented. One of them also stated that in his opinion, if a union participated in an illegal strike, the General Labour Inspectorate had an obligation to order, at the request of one of the parties concerned, a complete or partial change in the leadership of the union. If the union assembly did not comply with the order, the Labour Inspectorate had to apply for it to be closed down.
  277. 277 The second case is very similar. The findings of the court of first instance also state that the objectives set out in the statutes of the Metasa Metalworkers' Union and its subsidiaries (particularly the ban on provoking, declaring or supporting an illegal strike) were violated and that it had been proved that the union in question had, in August 1973, provoked a strike declared illegal by the labour authorities. These findings, pronouncing the closing down of the union, were upheld by the Upper Labour Court. The order issued by the latter refers also to other provisions of the trade union statutes, such as the ban on propaganda in support of communise and ideas prejudicial to national sovereignty, the republican and democratic form of government, public order and high moral standards, the ban on the use of violence, force or other illegal means in support of its claims and that of diverging from the objectives set out in the statutes and in the legislation. Two judges dissented with this order also and one of them said that, in his opinion, labour courts were not competent to receive a request for closure submitted by the employer.
  278. 278 The Committee points out that Article 4 of Convention No. 87 provides that workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. In the case under consideration, this measure was ordered after court action, mainly because the unions concerned had participated in strikes which had been declared illegal and had not been limited, according to the findings handed down, to simple stoppages of work.
  279. 279 It is appropriate to draw attention to the severity of the penalty imposed on the unions themselves and not on those of their leaders who may have been responsible for illegal acts and it could be considered and it would have been preferable to use less drastic methods to settle these disputes. In an earlier case involving Nicaragua, the Committee pointed out that the provisions governing the settlement of collective disputes restricted the right to strike for all workers, and not only those in essential services. It also pointed out that the principle that restrictions on the right to strike would be acceptable under certain conditions did not refer to the absolute prohibition of the right to strike as such but to the restriction of that right in essential services or in the public service.
• Allegations respecting the Arrest of Trade Union Leaders
  280. 280 The complainant also states that in August 1973 the police arrested Julio Gurdián, Ofilio Garcia, Antonio Centeno and Francisco Palacios, leaders of the aforementioned textile workers' union, at the time when a general strike was started in the textile industry. The workers mentioned were still in detention in November 1973 without any specific charge having been brought against them. The WCL added that it was not known what authority had ordered and maintained their detention.
  281. 281 The Government has submitted no information on this aspect of the case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 282. In these circumstances, and with regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) with regard to the closing down of the two unions mentioned, and having regard to the considerations set out in paragraph 279 above, to decide that as these unions were closed down by court order, this aspect of the case does not call for further examination;
   • (b) with regard to the arrest of the trade union leaders, to request the Government to indicate as soon as possible the present situation concerning the two leaders arrested, to state whether they have appeared before a court and, if so, to supply the text of the court findings and the reasons given therefor;
   • (c) to take note of this interim report, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report as soon as it has received the information requested from the Government.