Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 243, Marzo 1986

Caso núm. 1322 (República Dominicana) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 20-FEB-85 - Cerrado

1. 121. The Unified Workers' Confederation (CUT) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in communications dated 20 February, 23 March and 3 May 1985. The General Confederation of Workers (CGT) presented further allegations in a communication dated 25 April 1985. The Government sent replies in communications dated 11 and 23 May, 18 September, 31 October and 15 November 1985.
2. 122. The Dominican Republic has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 123. In its letter of 20 February 1985, the CUT alleges that its activities have been disturbed by the Government's anti-union actions. For example, on 21 January 1985 a meeting of the executive committee of the CUT had to be suspended because its national headquarters were being closely watched by members of the secret service of the National Police and its leaders were being closely followed by them. On 30 January 1985 a work session of the National Directorate of the CUT was prevented for lack of a quorum because both in the capital and provincial cities CUT leaders and premises were inspected and searched by the state security forces. Again, on 5 February 1985, the CUT Secrerary-General, Mr. José Cristóbal Durán, was held by the police for almost three hours in the early morning at his home. On the following day, the CUT Correspondence Secretary and Secretary-General of the National Federation of Workers in the Food, Commerce, Hotel and Allied Industries (FENATRACOBA-CUT), Victor Rosario, was taken away by the police, and the CUT premises at Santiago were broken into by the National Police (breaking the padlocks) and office equipment was destroyed.
2. 124. According to the CUT, when a general strike was called for on 11 February 1985, government repression reached such a level as to oblige CUT leaders to go underground and continue their activities clandestinely. On 16 February 1985, the CUT Organisation Secretary, Mario Robles Fortuna, was arrested at Santiago de los Caballeros and to date is still imprisoned. Mr. Sigfredo Cabral, the Press and Propaganda Secretary of the Dominican Teachers' Association (ADP) was also allegedly beaten up by members of the army. Lastly, the CUT alleges generally that all of the trade union movement and its leaders are continuing to suffer persecution such as telephone tapping and violation of both incoming and outgoing correspondence.
3. 125. In its letter of 23 March 1985, the CUT also alleges that the Government has not reacted to its and other trade unions' requests for dialogue to eliminate the suffering of workers and the unemployed, despite the Government's publication in the press to the effect that it was entering into negotiations with several workers' confederations including the CUT. Among the press cuttings attached to the CUT's letter is a report of the beating suffered by Mr. Sigfredo Cabral on 27 January 1985 at the hands of members of the G-2 division of the army.
4. 126. In its letter of 3 May 1985, the CUT alleges that the Chairman of Quémica Industrial C.A. (a subsidiary of Bayer International) has been using discriminatory methods and trying to destroy the workers' trade union of that company (SINTRAQUINDUS). It cites the following incidents:
   • - on 13 March 1985, the Chairman dismissed the Secrerary-General of the union, Mr. Clodomiro Tejada, contrary to the collective agreement in force and despite the fact that Mr. Tejada had not committed any errors in his work;
   • - in January 1985, José Carvajal and Santa Canela were dismissed;
   • - on 26 April 1985, José Miguel Martínez, Deyanira Carela, Rosario Ramírez and Angel Augusto were dismissed for being Black and Juana Camacho was dismissed because her husband is Asian. The CUT states that it has brought these facts to the attention of the President of the Republic, the National Congress, the media and the international and national trade union movement.
5. 127. The General Confederation of Workers, in its letter of 25 April 1985, refers to three situations of alleged flagrant violations of freedom of association:
   • - The Haitian labourers are prohibited, in practice, from forming or joining trade unions because of their temporary stays in the country and because they are constantly transferred from one sugar plantation to another; if they are discovered in meetings for this purpose they are arrested. The CGT annexes to its letter details of anti-union acts which took place at the "Porvenir" sugar plantations on 16 April 1985. First, it states that 28 Haitian labourers approached the local police station to request the release of a fellow worker who was detained on suspension of holding secret meetings for political ends, but were themselves arrested and beaten by the chief of the police of that station. He also allegedly abused and threatened the unionists, and a labour inspector of the Haitian Embassy who had been acting as mediator was forced to defend himself from the police violence. Secondly, on the same day, during an illegal evening search of their house, Messrs. Francisco Pérez, an executive member of the FENAZUCAR-CGT, and Sentil Sentiles were taken away by company officials using two cars of the eastern region secret service and one army vehicle.
   • - On 6 April 1985, according to the CGT, the following trade union leaders were arrested while distributing trade union leaflets concerning a campaign on wages: Pablo Castillo, Functions Secretary of the CGT of Puerto Plata, José Vasquez and Warner Carrasco Nin, Co-ordinators of the CGT Profederation Committee of Barahona, and Antonio Jiménez, a leader of the ticket vendors' trade union at Puerto Plata.
   • - The Secretary-General of the CGT, Julio de Peña Valdez, is under surveillance with a permanent watch on his home.

B. The Government's replies

1. 128. In its communication of 11 May 1985, the Government denies the CUT's allegations of violations of freedom of association and states that, due to their limited training, so-called trade union leaders confound lack of respect for the authorities, government decisions and the legally established order with disorderliness. It adds that the allegations are not supported by the proof necessary for such a complaint. According to the Government, the ILO should not embark on actions directly related to political situations supported by various groups which previously had followed the line dictated by their particular interests using the climate of respect of citizens' freedoms, in particular freedom of the press, to try to give a distorted picture of the real situation to the national and international public. Lastly, the Government points out that in the country no trade unionists have been arrested for carrying out trade union activities; the Government supports and encourages the trade union movement as is shown by the creation of innumerable trade unions and new confederations.
2. 129. In its letter of 23 May 1985, the Government adds that the Secretariat of State for Labour has carried out investigations into the allegations and has concluded that there have been no violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Measures for national security were taken when a strike was announced - which was illegal - because it is the custom of certain trade unionists to challenge the authorities openly, in line with extreme leftist parties, with a view to disrupting law and order. Despite this situation, the national authorities acted cautiously and wisely without physical abuse; no arrests were made for investigation purposes within the legal provisions and there are no trade unionists detained in the country for having carried out trade union activities. It adds that no trade union premises have been occupied by the forces of public order.
3. 130. The Government states in its communication of 18 September 1985 that it has defused a large-scale political struggle against it by granting a substantial wage increase for all workers of the country through Resolution No. 1/85; public employees' salaries and medical personnel salaries have also been increased. According to the Government, the struggle led by various trade union confederations never took place within the legal procedures provided for in the legislation of the country; the authorities, therefore, were forced to adopt security measures to preserve law and order.
4. 131. As regards the allegations concerning Quémica Industrial C.A., the Government states in its letter of 31 October 1985 that the Secretariat of State for Labour undertook investigations and concluded that at no time had workers been dismissed on the grounds of colour or race, but for serious errors in carrying out their tasks. For example, Mr. Clodomiro Tejada was dismissed for violation of s. 78(2), (6), (7) and (10) of the Labour Code. Nevertheless, the appropriate tribunal of the Secretariat of State for Labour is empowered to hear dismissal cases and will decide accordingly.
5. 132. In its communication of 15 November 1985, the Government states that the most recent allegations lack solid evidence and are no more than invectives made in conjunction with foreigners devoted to trade union-type work in the sugar plantations in open violation of the hospitality offered by the country with its civil liberties and jealously guarded peace. According to the Government, Haitian nationals who temporarily participate in cane-cutting for three or four months of the year have never shown any interest in occupational struggles, or in paying union fees and yet continue to be besieged by politicised trade unionists. The Government considers that these allegations should be rejected as being contrary to law and without foundation.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 133. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case basically fall into four categories:
2. (1) arrests and continued detention of trade union officials;
3. (2) forced entry into union premises and destruction of union property therein as well as surveillance of union correspondence;
4. (3) anti-union dismissals at the chemical factory Quémica Industrial C.A.; and
5. (4) various restrictions on freedom of association at the "Porvenir" sugar plantations, including police violence.
6. 134. As regards the alleged arrests of trade union leaders in February 1985 (José Cristóbal Durán held for three hours at his home; Victor Rosario, Mario Robles Fortuna still detained; Sigfredo Cabral beaten up by army officers) and April 1985 (Pablo Castillo, José Vasquez, Warner Carrasco Nin, and Antonio Jiménez), the Committee notes the Government's general denial of any arrests and detentions for trade union activities. It also notes the Government's inference that political groups are trying to give a distorted picture of the real situation and its statement that security measures were taken when an illegal strike was called in February and that the forces of order acted with prudence and without any physical abuse.
7. 135. Given the detailed nature of the allegations, the Committee can only regret that the Government confines its reply to a general denial, mentioning "security measures" without specifying their nature or duration. It especially regrets this since past complaints against the Dominican Republic have referred to the brief arrest of Mario Robles in July 1983 (see 234th Report, Case No. 1221, paragraphs 108 to 115, approved by the Governing Body at its 226th Session, May-June 1984). Although the lack of sufficiently detailed information prevents it from reaching specific conclusions on the alleged arrests of early 1985, the Committee nevertheless draws the Government's attention to the principle that the arrest and detention of trade unionists in connection with trade union activities constitutes serious interference with trade union rights unless attended by appropriate judicial safeguards and that the preventive detention of trade unionists on the ground that breaches of the law may take place in the course of a strike involves a serious danger of infringement of trade union rights (see, for example, 217th Report, Case No. 1076 (Bolivia), para. 620). It trusts that the Government will take account of these principles if called upon to take security measures in the future.
8. 136. As regards the alleged forced entry into union premises and destruction of union property in February 1985 and surveillance of union correspondence, the Committee notes the Government's statement that no trade union premises have been occupied by forces of public order and that it has been supporting and encouraging the trade union movement, as evidenced by the creation of trade unions and new confederations. Once again, in view of the general nature of this reply, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the Resolution on trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 54th Session (1970), which states that the right to adequate protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights (see also 218th Report, Case No. 1086 (Mauritania), para. 145).
9. 137. The Committee considers that it is not within its competence to comment on those dismissals at the Quémica Industrial C.A. allegedly based on race. On the other hand, the Committee notes that the dismissal of the Secretary-General of the factory union, Mr. Clodomiro Tejada, was based, according to the Government, on s. 78 of the Labour Code which permits the employer to dismiss an employee on the following grounds:
10. (2) that the employee performs work in a manner clearly showing his incapacity, inefficiency or lack of care in the work required under the contract;
11. (6) that the employee in the course of his work or in connection therewith wilfully causes or attempts to cause material damage to the buildings, installations, machinery, tools, raw materials, products or other objects related to the work;
12. (7) that the employee unintentionally causes serious damage of the kind mentioned in the preceding subparagraph through negligence or imprudence;
13. (10) that the employee through inexcusable imprudence or negligence compromises the safety of the workshop, office or other place in the undertaking, or the persons therein. The Committee observes that the complainant does not specify the link between this dismissal and the Government's alleged attempts to destroy the factory union. Furthermore, in view of the fact that appeal procedures exist against such dismissals, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
14. 138. As regards the various allegations of trade union repression at the "Porvenir" sugar plantations, the Committee takes note of the Government's assertions that the temporarily resident Haitian cane-cutters have never shown any interest in occupational struggles and that it considers these allegations to be contrary to law and without foundation. The Committee also notes that it has, in the past (see 241st Report, Case No. 1293, paras. 263 to 274, approved by the Governing Body at its 231st Session, November 1985), been presented with allegations concerning this state sugar plantation and that the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution to examine the observance of, inter alia, the freedom of association Conventions ratified by the Dominican Republic recommended certain amendments to the Labour Code and the taking of measures to eliminate shortcomings in the application of Convention No. 87 on this very point (see Report of the Commission of Inquiry, ILO, Official Bulletin, Vol LXVI, 1983, Series B, Special Supplement, pras. 465 to 476 and 530 to 532). In view of the fact that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations is pursuing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in its regular examination of the Dominican Republic's observance of Convention No. 87, the Committee considers that this aspect of the present case should be referred to the Committee of Experts, in particular the alleged police violence against Haitian labourers and unionists and the arrest of the Secretary-General of FENAZUCAR-CGT.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 139. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • a) As regards the alleged arrests in February and April 1985 and continued detention of trade union officials, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the following principles: the arrest and detention of trade unionists in connection with trade union activities constitutes serious interference with trade union rights and that the preventive detention of trade unionists on the ground that breaches of the law may take place in the course of a strike involves a serious danger of infringement of trade union rights.
   • b) The Committee trusts that the Government will take account of these principles if called upon to take security measures in the future.
   • c) As regards the alleged forced entry into union premises, destruction of union property therein and surveillance of union correspondence, the Committee would recall generally that the right to adequate protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights.
   • d) The Committee considers that the allegations concerning anti-union dismissals at the Quémica Industrial C.A. chemical factory do not call for further examination.
   • e) As regards the various allegations of trade union repression at the "Porvenir" state sugar plantations, in particular police violence against Haitian labourers and unionists and the arrest of the Secretary-General of FENAZUCAR-CGT, the Committee refers this aspect of the present case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, within the framework of its examination of the effect given to the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry set up by virtue of Article 26 of the ILO Constitution.