Definitive Report - Report No 375, June 2015

Case No 3071 (Dominican Republic) - Complaint date: 03-APR-14 - Closed

Allegations: Refusal by the authorities to meet with the officials of the Labour Inspectors’ Association of the Dominican Republic; relocations of trade unionists and warnings against them for participating in a peaceful protest

1. 182. The complaint is contained in a communication of the National Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CNUS) dated 3 April 2014.
2. 183. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 29 July 2014.
3. 184. The Dominican Republic 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 organization’s allegations

1. 185. In its communication dated 3 April 2014, the CNUS alleges that, since its foundation, the Labour Inspectors’ Association of the Dominican Republic (ASITRAREDO) endeavoured to facilitate the improvement of inspection services by all legal means, through enhanced quality of inspections, improved conditions under which labour inspectors carry out their activities and better living and working conditions for them. In this context, ASITRAREDO requested, first verbally and later in writing, to meet with the Minister of Labour in order to discuss the topics of concern to the Association and the labour inspectors. The requests to meet and establish a forum for dialogue between the Ministry and the Association went unheeded.
2. 186. The complainant organization further states that in retaliation for the requests made and its trade union and association activities, the Minister of Labour sent ten inspectors, including Mr Enemencio Matos Gómez (President of the Association), Ms Evelyn Geraldina Mejía Mejía (Finance Secretary), Ms Elizabeth Batista (member of the Disciplinary Tribunal) and Mr Víctor Guerrero Ogando (External Relations Secretary), to remote centres. The other jurisdictions were extremely far from the places where they had been carrying out their functions, where their families were based and where research is conducted to improve their skills, and this caused them serious financial, family and other difficulties.
3. 187. The complainant organization alleges that, when the Minister of Labour refused ASITRAREDO’s request for a meeting, the Association drew up the list of topics that it needed to discuss and, in a communication received by the Minister’s office on 16 November 2012, went into detail about each and every aspect that needed to be considered and resolved jointly by the parties, while repeating the request for a meeting. The planned topics included: the reinstatement to their previous posts of those who had been relocated; various economic demands; the provision of an area within the Ministry of Labour to be used as premises by the Association and to bring together the inspectors, supervisors and local labour representatives; the requirement that vacancies for local representatives be filled through an internal competition in which all inspectors who enter take part on equal terms.
4. 188. As the Association did not receive a response to this communication from the Minister either and the problems raised continued to adversely affect the inspectors, the Association devised and implemented a plan of action to make their voices heard and address their demands; the actions planned included a protest in front of the Ministry of Labour.
5. 189. The complainant organization specifies that a protest was indeed held by ASITRAREDO in front of the Ministry of Labour at 11 a.m. on 5 November 2013, with the coordination and support of the CNUS, and unfolded peacefully and with complete respect for people and property. However, instead of receiving and meeting the Association’s representatives to discuss how to solve the problems which had been raised by the Association, on 11 November 2013, in retaliation for the legitimate claims of the ASITRAREDO members, the Minister of Labour issued warnings to the trade union officials, Mr Enemencio Matos Gómez, Mr Agustín del Carmen, Mr Víctor Guerrero Ogando, Ms Evelyn Geraldina Mejía Mejía and Mr Juan Manuel Mercedes Montaño, as well as 14 other members. In retaliation for the trade union activities and the scope of the freedom of association for labour inspectors, the Minister of Labour therefore took actions which constitute a flagrant violation, not only of the national Constitution, but also of ratified ILO Conventions on freedom of association.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 190. In its communication of 29 July 2014, the Government states that an analysis of the complaint filed by the CNUS highlights various aspects which warrant individual responses. Concerning the comment submitted by the CNUS implying that the Dominican authorities, and specifically the Ministry of Labour, have been ignoring ASITRAREDO, it is important to note that at no time has the Ministry of Labour undermined freedom of association of any Ministry of Labour employees in word or deed. On the contrary, since the founding of the Association, the Ministry has encouraged and supported every board which has headed the Association. It is worthwhile mentioning the support offered to the first board, chaired by the Inspector Supervisor Mr Dionicio Morel, followed by the board led by Mr Andrés Valentín Herrera (current Director-General of Labour), and also the boards chaired by Mr Daniel Jiménez, and currently Mr Enemencio Matos (current President of the Board). Mr Enemencio Matos has been received by the Minister individually and through the Association’s commissions.
2. 191. With regard to the various requests which ASITRAREDO made to the Minister, the Minister appointed a commission as a viable response to the Association’s various concerns. The Commission was headed by a deputy minister, the Director-General for Labour and the Inspection Coordinator and they held a number of follow-up meetings dedicated to each and every concern raised by the Association.
3. 192. In addition, with regard to the allegation that labour inspectors have been sent to remote areas as retaliation for the requests made, the Government points out that, given the fact that 60 per cent of inspectors live and have their families in the country’s two main cities (Distrito Nacional and Santiago de los Caballeros), they can potentially be affected by routine relocations to other cities across the entire country, where the rest of the labour offices (40 offices) are located. As proof that there is no malicious intent in the changes made in recent years, the President of ASITRAREDO, Mr Enemencio Matos, was sent to a representative office that brings him 90 miles closer to his house, while Mr Víctor Guerrero Ogando, the Association’s External Relations Secretary, was brought 50 miles closer from where he had previously worked. The Government stresses that each of the labour inspectors, once employed, are informed of the need to be in jurisdictions which can potentially be far from their home, to which they agree. They therefore consent both to regular relocation and to moving to offices which are not in their place of residence. The Government attaches copies of these consent forms.
4. 193. With regard to the list of topics submitted by ASITRAREDO to the Ministry of Labour, the Government indicates that the Ministry has gradually been responding to each of the topics and sending numerous clarifications in that respect, including regarding the economic aspect of the working conditions and the competitions. In response to the request by ASITRAREDO for physical space on the premises of the Ministry of Labour, the Government states that the Ministry has always offered the facilities, as demonstrated by the office granted to ASITRAREDO and the spaces provided to the Association each time that it had requested. That matter should therefore not be a cause of concern for the Association.
5. 194. Regarding the allegation that a group of inspectors had been penalized (“warned”) for protesting about the failure of their claims to be met, the Government emphasizes that both the national Constitution and Act No. 41-08 on the Civil Service and its implementing regulations fully safeguard the right of civil servants to carry out any protests which they consider important. However, Act No. 41-08 itself governs how to file any kind of claim, and that procedure was not observed by various inspectors who caused work stoppages on 5 November 2013, affecting the public service applications that citizens normally make to the Ministry of Labour. As a consequence, the work stoppages took the Ministry of Labour by surprise and it could not prepare a response for the users (Act No. 41-08, art. 32(4)). The Government reiterates that the country is open to receive any guidance from the International Labour Organization regarding the topics raised in this report and also stresses that it remains intent on ensuring effective compliance with legal standards, whether national or international, in order to guarantee industrial peace in the employer–employee relationship.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 195. The Committee observes that in this complaint, the CNUS alleges: (1) the refusal of the Minister of Labour to meet and discuss with ASITRAREDO representatives in order to improve labour inspectors’ inspection tasks and living and working conditions; copies of letters from the Association requesting an audience with the Minister of Labour were sent on 22 October 2012, 10 April 2013 and 2 August 2013; (2) the sending of ten labour inspectors to remote areas in retaliation for the requests and trade union activities and thereby causing them economic harm and family difficulties; among those sent were the trade union officials Mr Enemencio Matos Gómez (President of the Association), Ms Evelyn Geraldina Mejía Mejía (Finance Secretary), Ms Elizabeth Batista (member of the Disciplinary Tribunal) and Mr Víctor Guerrero Ogando (External Relations Secretary); (3) the refusal of the Minister of Labour to have a meeting requested by the Association with a list of topics to be discussed (which was received by the Minister’s office on 16 November 2012); the topics include: the reinstatement to their previous posts of those who had been relocated; various economic demands; the provision of an area within the Ministry of Labour to be used as premises by the Association and bring together the inspectors, supervisors and local labour representatives; the requirement that vacancies for local representatives be filled through an internal competition in which all inspectors who enter take part on equal terms; (4) as no response was given to the communication received by the Minister’s office, the Association implemented a plan of action which included a plan for a protest, that took place in front of the Ministry of Labour at 11 a.m. on 5 November 2013 and unfolded peacefully, with support from the CNUS; (5) in retaliation for the protests, on 11 November 2013, the Minister of Labour issued a warning to the trade union officials, Mr Enemencio Matos Gómez, Mr Agustín del Carmen, Mr Víctor Guerrero Ogando, Ms Evelyn Geraldina Mejía Mejía and Mr Juan Manuel Mercedes Montaño, as well as 14 other members.
2. 196. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statements that: (1) the President of the Association, as well as the previous presidents, had been received on numerous occasions by the Ministry of Labour both individually and through the Association’s commissions which it headed; (2) in response to the Association’s concerns, the Minister appointed a commission headed by the Deputy Minister, the Director-General for Labour and the Inspection Coordinator, and they held a number of follow-up meetings dedicated to each and every issue raised, as detailed in the Government’s reply, regarding economic aspects and the granting of an office to the Association (which did take place) and, when requested, other spaces; (3) with regard to the alleged sending of inspectors to remote locations as retaliation for the Association’s requests, there had been no malicious intent and the inspectors in question had given their written consent to regular changes of destination to jurisdictions that could be far from their homes, given that there were 40 labour offices spread across the entire country; the current President of the Association (Mr Enemencio Matos Gómez) and the External Relations Secretary (Mr Víctor Guerrero Ogando) had been sent to destinations which brought them respectively 90 and 50 miles closer to their homes; (4) with regard to the alleged warning issued to 19 inspectors, current legislation safeguards the rights of civil servants to carry out any protests which they consider important, but the inspectors who caused work stoppages on 5 November 2013 did not observe the procedure of Act No. 41-08 on the Civil Service, which governs how to present any kind of claim and they affected the public service applications that citizens normally make to the Ministry of Labour. As a consequence, the work stoppages took the Ministry of Labour by surprise and it could not prepare a response to the users; (5) the Ministry of Labour at no time undermined the freedom of association.
3. 197. The Committee concludes that the Government denies that there had been no dialogue with the Association, claiming that it had sent sufficient proof in that respect. It denies that the relocations or warnings of the inspectors were anti-trade union measures and stresses that they were legal and that it had been taken by surprise by a protest in front of the Ministry which disrupted the services to which users are entitled.
4. 198. The Committee welcomes the Government’s statement that it is open to receive any guidance from the ILO regarding the topics raised and, on account of the discrepancy between the versions of the complainant and the Government, wishes to draw the following conclusions: the main problem at the root of this complaint is the relocation of ten inspectors belonging to the Association, including five officials of the Association, one of which is its President, although they had given their written consent to regular relocations. Furthermore, one of the Association’s claims filed by the complainant organization, as described in the attachments, consists in creating a framework regulation to re-establish the form, methods and reasons for the relocations. The Committee invites the Government to examine this proposal with the Association.
5. 199. With regard to the warning given to five trade union officials and 14 other members of the Association for holding a protest in front of the Ministry of Labour (a peaceful one according to the trade union) which the Government claims to have taken it by surprise and therefore to have been a violation of Act No. 41-08, since it unduly disrupted user services, the Committee, taking into account the Government’s statements that the Association’s set of demands have been submitted to a high-level commission which has considered each of the problems raised, suggests that, in the interest of restoring harmonious relations between the parties, the Government and the Association jointly consider the possibility of re-examining the warnings given to the trade unionists in a constructive spirit.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 200. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) With regard to the alleged relocations of inspectors, the Committee invites the Government to examine, with ASITRADERO, the Association’s proposal to create a framework regulation to re-establish the form, methods and reasons for the relocations.
   • (b) With regard to the alleged warnings, in order to restore harmonious relations between the parties, the Committee suggests that the Government and the Association jointly consider the possibility of re-examining the warnings issued to trade unionists in a constructive spirit.