Definitive Report - Report No 217, June 1982

Case No 1044 (Dominican Republic) - Complaint date: 22-MAY-81 - Closed

1. 35. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in November 1981, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body.
2. 36. The Government subsequently submitted its observations in a communication dated 23 March 1982.
3. 37. The Dominican Republic 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 38. The allegations which remained pending concern the strike by workers in the National District Municipal Council, during which, according to the complainant, dozens were injured and hundreds of persons were arrested. The complainant added that hundreds of workers had been dismissed for having exercised their legitimate right to strike.
2. 39. The Government replied that the strike was undertaken in disregard of the requisite procedure established by the legislation and that the authorities took no repressive action against the workers. The Government also stated that the strikers were involved in violent street clashes and that they obtained the allocation of a state subsidy, which had been the principal claim on which the strike was based. Referring to various strikes, including that of the municipal workers, the Government added that the resolute and unequivocal intervention of the labour authorities prevented the undertakings from proceeding to dismiss hundreds of workers on the basis of their illegal acts.
3. 40. The Committee noted the information supplied by the Government and requested it to send more detailed observations on these allegations.

B. The Government's subsequent reply

1. 41. In its communication dated 23 March 1982, the Government states that the persons referred to by the complainant as having been wounded and arrested during the strike carried cut by workers of the National District Municipal council are not in fact municipal employees, but are persons who have infiltrated the workers in order to provoke disorders with the obvious intention of seriously disrupting public order. The Government adds that, in spite of this, the persons arrested were later released.
2. 42. The Government further states that, notwithstanding the illegal nature of the strike of the workers of the National District Municipal Council, they were all reinstated in their jobs.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 43. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government and, in particular, the fact that the persons referred to by the complainant as being wounded and arrested during the strike carried out by the workers of the National District Municipal Council did not belong to that institution, but that they were persons who had infiltrated the workers in order to provoke disturbances and disrupt public order. The Committee notes with interest that the persons arrested were later released and that, notwithstanding the illegal nature of the strike, all the workers dismissed were reinstated in their jobs. The Committee therefore considers that the case does not call for further examination.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 44. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that the case does not call for further examination.