Definitive Report - Report No 234, June 1984

Case No 1242 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 11-OCT-83 - Closed

1. 128. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Trade Unions International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers dated 11 October 1983. The Government replied in a communication of 6 January 1984.
2. 129. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 130. In its communication of 11 October 1983, the Trade Unions International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers alleges that the members of its affiliated organisation, the National Union of Workers in the Clothing, Textiles and Similar Industries, are victims of anti-union discrimination.
2. 131. The Trade Unions International states that during a visit made by its Deputy Secretary-General to Costa Rica in September 1983, the latter observed that as soon as employers in the textiles and clothing factories learn that a worker belongs to a trade union, he is immediately dismissed; in cases where the employer refuses to pay the necessary compensation, he transfers the worker to jobs for which he does not possess the necessary qualifications. Consequently, the worker commits mistakes for which he is often penalised, giving a pretext to dismiss him without paying any compensation whatsoever and without calling into question the employers' responsibility. The complainant adds that on several occasions, the management of the undertaking has offered money to a worker suspected of belonging to a trade union in exchange for the names of other trade union members.
3. 132. The complainant states that in June 1983 the management of the undertaking "Interfasons Industries" convened all the staff, after having dismissed a woman worker belonging to a trade union, to tell them that "trade unionism is evil as it undermines society and democracy, and the lowest and most deplorable thing a worker can do is to join a trade union".
4. 133. The complainant refers to undertakings in which as soon as a trade union is set up, the said undertakings immediately declare that they are bankrupt and dismiss all the staff; then, after a certain time, they reopen under a different name. The complainant cites as examples the YOLANDA undertaking which closed down in October 1982, only to reopen under the name of TODOCEST in November 1982; the same happened to HILATURA NACIONAL which closed in May 1983 and reopened in August of the same year. The complainant organisation concludes by stating that these examples bear witness to the efforts deployed by the management of the undertakings to prevent workers from exercising the rights contained in the Constitution and Labour Code of Costa Rica and in the ILO Conventions and Recommendations.

B. The Government's reply

1. 134. In its communication of 6 January 1984, the Government states, in the first place, that it notes with concern that many trade union organisations turn to the ILO without having availed themselves of the opportunity offered them by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the law courts of the country to settle this type of dispute.
2. 135. With respect to the allegation made by the Trade Unions International of Textile, Clothing, Leather and Fur Workers that several textile undertakings allegedly prevented workers from exercising their rights contained in the Constitution, the Labour Code and the ILO Conventions and Recommendations, the Government states that no cases of violation of freedom of association have been brought before the courts of the country. The only lawsuits brought before the First Communal Court (Menor Cuantía) and others within the Republic have been lodged against the Hilatura National undertaking for having dismissed some of its workers. The Government adds that no complaints whatsoever have been made against the other undertakings mentioned by the complainant.
3. 136. As far as the Hilatura National undertaking is concerned, the Government explains that this undertaking had closed down and declared that it was bankrupt as a result of the difficult economic situation; indeed, it was not alone, as several undertakings throughout the country had suffered the same fate. The Government concludes by stating that the dismissed workers and the undertaking finally reached a settlement, in which it was agreed that the legal compensation would be paid, thus putting an end to the dispute.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 137. The Committee notes that the present case refers to the dismissal of workers in textile and clothing undertakings. It also notes that, according to the complainant organisation, these dismissals had been prompted by the fact that the dismissed workers were members of its affiliated trade union organisation, the National Union of Workers in the Clothing, Textiles and Similar Industries.
2. 138. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government's statement, according to which these workers did not avail themselves of the opportunities provided by the national legal channels to assert their rights and settle these disputes. It also notes that the only case brought before the courts on the grounds of dismissal concerned the Hilatura National undertaking and that the latter had declared itself bankrupt as a result of the difficult economic situation; indeed, it was not the only undertaking in the country to be in this situation. In spite of this, the dismissed workers and the undertaking reached a settlement in which it was agreed that the legal compensation would be paid, thereby finding a solution to the dispute.
3. 139. In these circumstances, the Committee wishes to point out to the Government, as it has already done on previous occasions, the need to lay down explicitly in the legislation remedies and penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers in workers' organisations in order to ensure the effective application of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Costa Rica. The same comments were also made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in its 1983 General Report, when it examined the report submitted by the Government of Costa Rica on the above-mentioned Convention.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 140. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • (a) the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the dismissed workers did not, apart from one case, avail themselves of the national legal channels open to them to assert their rights;
   • (b) it draws to the Government's attention, as the Committee of Experts has already done, the need to lay down explicitly in the legislation remedies and penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers in workers' organisations in order to ensure the effective application of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98.