Interim Report - Report No 238, March 1985

Case No 1300 (Costa Rica) - Complaint date: 24-AUG-84 - Closed

1. 282. The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions dated 24 August 1984. The Government replied by a letter of 15 November 1984.
2. 283. 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. 284. The complainant alleges that the Government brutally repressed the strike that was started on 10 July 1984 by over 3,000 workers of the banana plantations belonging to the Banana Company of Costa Rica (most of which are owned by United Brands and the Standard Fruit Company) who were claiming wage increases and the negotiation of a new collective agreement.
2. 285. The complainant states that United Brands and the Standard Fruit Company secured from the Government a declaration that the strike was illegal. On the strength of this, on 24 July 1984 the police took action against the strikers, killing Franklin Guzman and injuring an unspecified number of strikers. After 38 days' strike, the police opened fire, causing the death of strikers Luis Rosales and Jesús Rosales and wounding ten other persons.

B. The Government's reply

1. 286. The Government disputes the allegation that it took repressive action against the Costa Rican trade union movement either before or on the occasion of the strike held by the banana workers in July 1984. Nor is it true to say that the Government granted United Brands and the Standard Fruit Company a declaration that the strike was illegal since such a declaration lies within the sole jurisdiction of the judicial authorities. The Government goes on to say that the illegality of the strike movement in question was declared by decisions of the Labour Court of Golfito (10 July 1984) and of the Labour Court of Osa-Ciudad Cortés (11 July 1984), confirmed by decisions of the Higher Labour Court dated 12 and 17 July 1984 respectively. The Government encloses a copy of the court decisions in question which indicate, as grounds for declaring the strike unlawful, the fact that the union had not started the conciliation and arbitration procedure provided for by law and that the trade unionists had barred the access of workers who wished to enter the plantations. In accordance with the provisions in force, the court authorities ordered the police to "guarantee the continuation of work by all possible means, ensuring the safety of those workers who did not wish to join in the illegal movement but wanted to carry on with their work and providing protection for the assets of the Banana Company of Costa Rica". The Government refers in this connection to section 381 of the Labour Code which provides that "in the event of a legally declared strike or work stoppage, the labour courts shall immediately give orders to the police authorities for the establishments or businesses affected by the dispute to be kept closed and for due protection to be given to people and property. In the event of an illegal strike or work stoppage, the labour courts shall order the police authorities to guarantee the continuation of activities by all means within their power ...".
2. 287. With regard to the strike and its consequences, the Government makes the following statements:
   • - In July a strike broke out on the banana and palm oil plantations of the Banana Company of Costa Rica, in the area of Coto y Palmar Sur, which unexpectedly took on a violent character.
   • - From the beginning the strike movement was unusually violent, involving a number of confrontations between the participants and the authorities of the civil guard who were trying to ensure access to the plantations for those workers who wanted to get on with their work.
   • - It was regrettably in one of these confrontations, on 24 July 1984, that Mr. Franklin Guzman lost his life and on 15 August 1984 Mr. Luis Rosales Villegas, these deaths coming as a complete surprise to the civil guards who were in no way responsible for causing them apart from being obliged to deal with the strikers' violent action.
   • - In the days preceding the incident, members of the civil guard had been in the area in which the events took place, passing in front of strikers organised into groups of regular size, without there having been any sort of harrassment or violence. During these days, the strikers' attitude was one of open dialogue and co-operation.
   • - On the day of the events which led up to the death of Franklin Guzman an unusual number of strikers had gathered together from early in the day in the place where the event took place - some 200 at the time of the confrontation.
   • - Only 20 civil guards, compared with a massive number of strikers, took part in the attack. The few civil guards who were attacked exhausted the means at their disposal for dissuading the strikers from continuing, as they had with them only a small number of tear-gas bombs. In the final resort, finding themselves practically surrounded by hostile workers and with several of their companions injured by stones thrown from various parts of the undergrowth, the civil guards used their regulation weapons, shooting into the air to intimidate the strikers and get them to disperse, which is what eventually happened.
   • - At no time during these disturbances did the officers or privates who were present see any worker fall after being shot. It was only an hour after the confrontation had ended that a bus arrived on the scene carrying Mr. Guzman who was injured but still alive, and who died shortly after entering the Ciudad Neuilly hospital to which he was taken by police car.
   • - The worker who died had been obliged to join the strike movement in the early hours of the morning, when he was practically dragged from his house, despite his wife's protests, to join the strike.
   • - According to a verbal statement from the doctor at the Ciudad Neuilly hospital, who is a specialist in injuries of this kind, the wounded man's death was in fact due to the delay in taking him to the health centre since his life could have been saved by timely medical intervention and he could then have been sent to a hospital with a specialised medical and surgical team in San José.
   • - In the confrontation Mr. Freddy Bustamante Mata, Mr. José Pérez Pérez, Mr. Lorenzo Muñoz Esquivel and Mr. Eusebio Ruiz Noguera were also injured. Nevertheless in no case were the injuries caused by shots fired by the police.
   • - With regard to the events of 15 August 1984, which ended with the death of Mr. Luis Rosales Villegas, the facts were as follows: a noisy group of workers were on the Palmar banana plantations Nos. 2 and 4, seeking to bar the way of the civil guard authorities and throwing stones and sticks at them and at some houses, presumably those of the workers who had not joined the strike. In these circumstances and in order to safeguard private property, individuals and themselves, the civil guards after exhausting the possibilities of dialogue and persuasion had no alternative but to use tear gas. As this did not have the desired effect, they resorted to firing shots in the air.
   • - In all the cases of confrontation the civil guard were undertaking routine duties at the time of the attack and there was no question of any operation prepared with the deliberate intention of repressing the strike movement. The injuries that occurred were all caused by the confusion arising out of the said confrontation and never as a result of isolated or deliberate action by the civil guard.
3. 288. The Government states that different offices of the judicial authorities (examining magistrates) are dealing with various cases to investigate all the events surrounding the deaths or injury of the strikers and to decide whether criminal liability can be attributed. According to the Government, so far nothing definite is known of the manner or circumstances in which the deaths occurred.
4. 289. The Government concludes by stating that the purposes of the strike movement had ceased to concern economic and social claims and had taken on a purely political character, as can readily be seen by the fact there are even workers who were forced to strike who are taking proceedings against communist leaders and representatives for payment of the wages they lost as a result of the strike movement.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 290. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that, on the basis of a declaration that the strike started on 10 July 1984 by workers of the Banana Company of Costa Rica was illegal, the police intervened on a number of occasions against strikers, causing the death of three strikers and injuring an unspecified number of others. According to the complainant, it was the employers who had secured from the Government the declaration that the strike was illegal.
2. 291. With regard to this declaration of illegality, the Committee notes the Government's statement that such declarations are a matter for the judicial authorities and not for the Government. The Committee observes in this connection that the Government has furnished the text of court decisions declaring the illegality of the strike started by banana workers on 10 July 1984 for failing to meet the legal requirements: in particular because the trade union had not followed the conciliation and arbitration procedure provided for by law and because trade unionists had prevented workers who wished to continue working from having access to their workplaces. The Committee notes that, according to the court decisions referred to and the Labour Code, the workers of the Banana Company of Costa Rica may exercise the right to strike and the arbitration procedure takes place only by agreement between the parties.
3. 292. In this respect the Committee has stated on previous occasions (see, for example, 134th Report, Case No. 702 (Costa Rica), para. 36) that legislation which provides for voluntary conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes before a strike may be called cannot be regarded as an infringement of freedom of association. In these circumstances the Committee considers that the declaration that the strike started on 10 July 1984 by the banana workers was illegal cannot be objected to from the point of view of the principles of freedom of association.
4. 293. As regards the intervention of the civil guard during the strike, the Committee notes that, as stated in the court decisions provided by the Government, the judicial authorities, in accordance with the law in force in respect of illegal strikes, gave orders to the police to guarantee the continuation of work, ensuring the safety of workers who did not wish to join the strike and protecting the property of the Banana Company of Costa Rica.
5. 294. With regard to the alleged consequences of the intervention of the civil guard during the strike which, according to the complainant, caused death and injuries among the strikers, the Committee notes that the Government only supplies information on two of the three workers who, according to the complainant, died (Mr. Franklin Guzman and Mr. Luis Rosales). The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the exact form or circumstances of these two deaths have not been established and that the civil guards played no part in these deaths. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the alleged death of the striking worker, Jesús Rosales, to which it makes no reference in its reply.
6. 295. The Committee also observes that the Government recognises the fact that on the days when the two workers died the police fired shots in the air after having been attacked and having used tear gas. Nevertheless it cannot be established from the Government's statements that there was any connection between the shots fired and the deaths. In the case of Mr. Franklin Guzman, the Government states that he was brought by bus, injured but still alive, to the place where the confrontation had taken place between the strikers and the police on 10 July 1984, an hour after the confrontation had ceased. In the case of Mr. Luis Rosales, who died on the same day as the confrontation between the strikers and police of 15 August 1984, the Government has no concrete information to provide on the death of this worker.
7. 296. In the circumstances, the Committee deeply regrets the death of the workers Franklin Guzman and Luis Rosales, as well as the attacks which took place during the strike of the banana workers in July and August 1984. It requests the Government to supply information on the outcome of the judicial investigations being carried out into the deaths and injuries which occurred.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 297. The Committee requests the Governing Body to approve this interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • (a) The Committee considers that the declaration of illegality concerning the strike which was started on 10 July 1984 by banana workers cannot be objected to from the point of view of the principles of freedom of association since - as the judicial authorities pointed out - the trade union had failed to comply with the legal requirement of prior conciliation and arbitration laid down in the Labour Code;
   • (b) The Committee deeply regrets the death of workers Franklin Guzman and Luis Rosales, and the physical attacks that took place during the aforementioned strike. The Committee requests the Government to supply information on the outcome of the judicial inquiries that are under way into the deaths and injuries that took place.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the alleged death of the striking worker Jesús Rosales to which it makes no reference in its reply.