Definitive Report - Report No 160, March 1977

Case No 826 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 09-AUG-75 - Closed

1. 58. The Latin American Federation of Workers in the Timber and Construction Industry (FLATICOM) presented a complaint by a communication of 9 August 1975 alleging violation of freedom of association in Costa Rica.
2. 59. The text of this communication was transmitted to the Government, which submitted its comments by a letter dated 27 May 1976.
3. 60. Costa Rica has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 61. FLATICOM alleged in its complaint that members of the Executive Council of the union of the Association of Prefabricated Houses of the firm Terrenos, Urbanizaciones y Casas SA (TUCASA), which is affiliated to it, had been persecuted. The complainant organisation stated that on 19 July 1975 seven leaders of that union, including the general secretary, had been unfairly dismissed.
2. 62. According to the complainants, this action proved clearly that there was anti-union discrimination in that undertaking. FLATICOM enclosed with its letter a communication which it had addressed to the Minister of Labour and Social Security, in which it called for the reinstatement of these union leaders.
3. 63. In its reply, the Government stated that it was quite possible that the undertaking was experiencing a difficult financial situation during the year 1975, which would have explained the large-scale dismissals of workers from the undertaking during that period, since it was already evident that the firm was going bankrupt. Thus, continued the Government, from January to July 1975, 41 workers were dismissed, including the seven union leaders, and other persons had resigned.
4. 64. The dismissal of the union leaders resulted in the filing of a complaint for union persecution, on 28 July, by the Costa Rican Workers' Confederation with the National Directorate of Labour Inspection of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The text of the complaint in question is appended to the Government's communication.
5. 65. The Government also enclosed with its communication a copy of the report which the Inspector responsible for the case addressed to the National Director of Labour Inspection. In this document, the Inspector concluded that on the basis of the evidence produced "there was persecution of the workers forming the union's executive council". The matter was transmitted to a higher authority but, whilst the necessary complaints were being prepared for submission to the courts, the company filed a bankruptcy petition with the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Considering that it was of little importance to pursue the complaint for anti-trade union discrimination, but that it was more important to solve the serious social problem of unemployment, the Government endeavoured to help the workers and to ensure the payment of their entitlements and compensation. Consequently, the Government asked that the complaint be rejected.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 66. The Committee has always considered as a basic principle of freedom of association that workers must be adequately protected against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union delegates, since, in order to perform their trade union functions in complete independence, they must have the assurance that their trade union activities will not cause them any prejudice.
2. 67. In the present case, the Committee notes that an inquiry was carried out by the labour inspectorate after the dismissals, and that the matter was about to be referred to the courts when the undertaking went bankrupt.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 68. In these circumstances, and in view of the bankruptcy of the undertaking in question, whilst recalling the principles mentioned in paragraph 66 above, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that no purpose would be served in pursuing its examination of this case.