Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 144, 1974

Cas no 612 (Espagne) - Date de la plainte: 27-OCT. -69 - Clos

1. 22. The Committee last examined this case at its session in February 1974, when it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 162-171 of its 142nd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 192nd Session (February-March 1974).
2. 23. The Committee recommended in paragraph 171 of that Report that the Governing Body should request the Government to provide its observations with respect to this complaint.
3. 24. The Government forwarded these observations in a communication dated 23 April 1974.
4. 25. Spain has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 26. It is appropriate to recall that the complaint by the WFTU began by referring to a series of strikes which had taken place in undertakings in various parts of Spain, involving some 200000 workers. These claims were concerned mainly with wage increases, the participation in collective bargaining of workers' representatives elected within the undertaking, the recognition of a democratic trade union, representative of the working class, the right to strike, and the release of imprisoned workers' leaders and activists. The WFTU alleged that the undertakings had ordered lockouts with the blessing of the authorities and dismissed workers, union representatives and members of works councils, that the striking workers had stayed out longer to show their solidarity and that the police had arrested the most active of the militants. The WFTU gave the names of numerous workers, trade union activists and union representatives who had been arrested for being members of workers' Committees and for playing an active part in the strike, members of works councils removed from office for having gone on strike, workers arrested for having criticised at a trade union meeting a draft collective agreement proposed by the union and active members of workers' Committees sentenced to long terms of imprisonment.
2. 27. In its reply, the Government states that the complaint of the WFTU was formulated in such general and biased terms that it is practically impossible to consider it with a view to making observations. The Government encloses a copy of a report on collective labour disputes, states that these are not labour disputes such as those arising frequently in other countries and adds that there are many countries in which labour disputes are much more frequent.
3. 28. When studying this case at its February 1974 session, the Committee observed that the complaint contained specific allegations relating to arrests and other measures taken against workers and union representatives. It was of the opinion that it must give more careful consideration to the matters relevant to freedom of association involved in these cases. It therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to forward its observations on the specific cases mentioned by the complainants and on the lockout and dismissal measures which, according to the WFTU, had been taken with the support of the authorities.
4. 29. In its latest communication, the Government refers to its letter of 4 October 1973, summarised above. It repeats, in particular, its previous statements concerning the propagandist nature which it attributes to the WFTU complaint. It goes on to state that it is now practically impossible to reconstitute, on the basis of the scant data contained in the complaint, the situation with regard to the persons mentioned, especially as the matter is several years old. Nevertheless, the Government claims that the persons in question have been released, because they have not been put on trial, or because trial has been postponed, or because they have benefited from the amnesty decree of 23 September 1971.
5. 30. Regarding the lock-out and dismissals of workers, the Government states that the allegation that the authorities supported these measures is completely unfounded; Spanish legislation, jurisprudence and practice oppose uncontrolled dismissals and lock-outs. Dismissal can take place only for one of the reasons provided for in labour legislation and a lock-out is permitted only if a crisis situation has been declared in respect of the undertaking. In the event of dismissal, a worker can always appeal to the proper tribunals and it is for the latter to determine whether dismissal is justified or not.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 31. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government regarding both the persons arrested and the lock-out and dismissals. It notes, in particular, that all the persons mentioned have been released. Nevertheless, it notes that the Government states its inability to provide detailed information on the cases mentioned by the complainants, with the result that it has not been able to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts regarding the detailed allegations concerning the arrests and other measures taken against workers and union representatives.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 32. In the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to note that all the persons mentioned in the complaint have been released; and
   • (b) to regret that the Government has not provided detailed information on the specific cases mentioned by the complainants, thus making it impossible for the Committee to reach its conclusions in full knowledge of the facts.