Definitive Report - Report No 222, March 1983

Case No 1103 (Nicaragua) - Complaint date: 18-DEC-81 - Closed

1. 53. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 18 December 1981. Additional information was supplied by the ICFTU in a communication dated 24 April 1982. The Government replied in communications dated 25 February and 22 May 1982.
2. 54. 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 55. The ICFTU states that a course on training methodology for Latin American trade union instructors at the International Centre for Advanced Technical and Vocational Training took place in Turin from 31 August to 20 November 1981, and that a fellowship has been offered to the Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CUS) and another to the Sandinist Confederation of Nicaraguan Workers (CST), each of which was to designate a participant. According to the complainant, while the CST representative obtained the Government's permission, the CUS representative, Mr. Germán Reyes, this organisation's secretary for labour disputes, was denied such permission.
2. 56. The complainant states that on 26 August 1981, the Turin Centre received a telex from the UNDP office in Managua saying that the CST candidate had been approved by the Ministry of Planning but that the CUS candidate had not applied to the Ministry for an authorisation. Subsequently, a telex of 4 September 1981, also sent by the UNDP office in Managua, stated that the Nicaraguan Government had not approved the participation of either of the two candidates.

B. The Government's reply

1. 57. In its communication of 25 February 1982, the Government states that it learned, through conversations with the office of International Relations of the CST, that this organisation's delegate for the course in Turin, Mr. Mario Ramirez, was unable to attend since he had not presented his papers to the migration offices in time and consequently could not obtain a passport and an exit visa early enough. As regards the CUS delegate, Mr. Germán Reyes, the Government states that he applied for a passport and a visa on 27 August 1981, which were delivered to him four days later, i.e. on 1 September 1981. The Government has sent an official attestation to corroborate these statements.
2. 58. In its communication of 22 May 1962, the Government states that it obtained the following explanations concerning the complaint from the Permanent Resident Representative of the UNDP in Nicaragua:
   • - since the Turin Centre is an institution belonging to the United Nations system, any co-operation must as a rule be channelled through the UNDP office in the country in question;
   • - the UNDP will not authorise any co-operation unless approved by the body responsible for co-operation in the country (in the present case, the Ministry of Planning);
   • - consequently, the UNDP representative contacted the CST and the CUS, informing them that it could give no authorisation unless the designated trade union delegates applied to the Ministry of Planning for the necessary authorisation;
   • - the CST delegate applied to the Ministry of Planning for the necessary authorisation, which was granted, but the CUS delegate did not, despite the fact that the UNDP reminded the CUS of the need to do so;
   • - in these circumstances, since the time for the trade union delegates to leave for Turin had expired, the UNDP representative and the competent authority of the Ministry of Planning decided that, in order to avoid any problems between the trade union organisations and any impression of partiality, it was preferable that neither of the delegates should go, even though the CST delegate had obtained the necessary authorisation.
3. 59. The Government concludes by stating that if it had had to intervene in this matter, it was precisely to see that the UNDP could authorise the fellowships for the trade union delegates in question; it did not do so because its authorisation is normally required, and it certainly did not do so to prevent the trade union organisations from participating in international events.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 60. The Committee takes note of the complainant's allegations and the Government's reply. It notes in particular that, according to the Government, if the CUS delegate was unable to attend the trade union training course at the International Centre for Advanced Technical and Vocational Training in Turin, it was because, although he had obtained a passport and a visa, he had not applied to the Ministry of Planning for the necessary authorisation. The Committee notes that the CST delegate applied for and obtained the necessary authorisation but not a passport, having failed to produce the necessary papers in time. The Committee also notes that the UNDP Resident Representative and the competent authority of the Ministry of Planning decided that, in order to avoid any problems between the trade union organisations, it was preferable that neither of the two delegates should attend the course, even though the CST delegate had obtained the necessary authorisation.
2. 61. The Committee observes that the Government's reply indicates that the authorisation by the Ministry of Planning for the trade union delegates to attend the trade union training course at the Turin Centre is not an authorisation normally required by the Government, but seems rather to be a procedural requirement of the UNDP co-operation programmes. Since, according to the information available to the Committee, the fellowships awarded to the CUS and the CST were not financed by the UNDP - whose representative acted only as a mediator in the matter - but by another organisation, the authorisation of the Ministry of Planning need not have been required since the UNDP programme procedure was not applicable. The Committee, therefore, can only regret that, owing to a bureaucratic procedure for which the authorities were not entirely responsible, the CUS and CST delegates were unable to attend the trade union training course given by the international Centre for Advanced Technical and Vocational Training in Turin. The Committee trusts that in future the participation of trade union leaders and members in training courses abroad will not be hindered.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 62. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report, in particular the following conclusions:
   • The Committee regrets that, owing to a bureaucratic procedure for which the authorities were not entirely responsible, the CUS and CST delegates were unable to attend the trade union training course given by the international Centre for Advanced and Vocational Training in Turin for which they had been awarded fellowships, and trusts that in future the participation of trade union leaders and members in training courses abroad will not be hindered.