Interim Report - REPORT_NO28, 1958

153. At its 17th Session (Geneva, May 1957), the Committee had before it a series of complaints, constituting Cases Nos. 134, 141, 153 and 154, relating to Chile. The cases were considered together.

1. 153. At its 17th Session (Geneva, May 1957), the Committee had before it a series of complaints, constituting Cases Nos. 134, 141, 153 and 154, relating to Chile. The cases were considered together.
2. 154. The Committee's conclusions regarding the different allegations made by the complainants are contained in paragraphs 56 to 103 of its 26th Report, and its recommendations to the Governing Body in paragraph 103. The Committee's 26th Report was approved by the Governing Body at its 135th Session (Geneva, May-June 1957).
3. 155. On three of these allegations the Committee submitted only interim conclusions. The allegations in question are those relating to the imprisonment of trade unionists, with regard to which the Government was asked to supply additional information, and those relating to violation of trade union rights and to reprisals against trade unionists in connection with a strike of bank employees and a strike in the nitrate mines, with regard to which the Government had not Yet forwarded its observations
4. 156. These three groups of allegations are the only ones still before the Committee for consideration, and the following analyses relate exclusively to these three groups.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Unionists
  157. 157 In its communication dated 28 February 1956 the National Bakers' Federation of Chile alleged that " with the aim of still further accentuating the effect on the Chilean working class of the inflationary process which was diminishing wages and salaries, the Government had started an unprecedented persecution against trade unionism, mainly against the trade union leaders ". The majority of the officers of the Sole Union of Chilean Workers (C.U.T.CH) were in custody and under prosecution. The anti-trade union attitude of the Government, which was contrary to the principles of freedom of organisation maintained by the I.L.O was " part of a whole policy aimed at destroying the clear democratic and freedom-loving tradition which Chile had outstandingly held among the American countries ". Messrs. Eduardo Long and Miguel Prádenas, officers of the C.U.T.CH, after being unconditionally released by the courts owing to lack of evidence against them, had been re-arrested by the political police when leaving prison and had been banished from the capital. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, in its communication dated 2 March 1956, added that the officers of the C.U.T.CH were detained because of the general strike on 9 January 1956 tailed in order to prevent the Government enacting a law to freeze wages and prices.
  158. 158 The Confederation of Latin American Workers alleged in its communication of 8 March 1956 that " as a result of the repression unleashed against the trade union movement " the following were being held in prison : Clotario Blest Riffo, President of the C.U.T.CH. ; Juan Vargas Puebla, official of the same organisation ; Baudilio Casanova, General Secretary of the organisation ; Julio Alegria, officer of the Posts and Telegraph Union ; Luis Ortega, General Secretary of the Electricity and Gas Workers' Federation ; and many others. The Public Prosecutor was said to have asked for a penalty of three years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 pesos against these workers ; the proceedings were said to involve all the officers of the National Executive Committee of the C.U.T.CH. In its communication of 6 April 1956 the Confederation of Latin American Workers stated that the arrested persons were refused bail. The Maritime Confederation of Chile, in its communication of 10 March 1956, made, without entering into details, an allegation that " trade union leaders are alleged to be enemies of law and order and to be active in parties attempting to destroy the democratic system of government and are being arrested, imprisoned and banished to desolate places ".
  159. 159 The World Federation of Trade Unions gives a more detailed account of the arrests of trade unionists in its communication dated 22 March 1956. It states that the Chilean Government has undertaken large-scale repression against those who participated in the strike organised on 9 January 1956 by the C.U.T.CH. The strike is said to have been staged in order to protest against restrictions on wage increases. The following members of the National Executive Committee of the C.U.T.CH are stated to have been detained prior to 9 January Clotario Blest Riffo (President), Juan Vargas Puebla (Treasurer), Ernesto Mirando, Armando Aguirre, Gilberto Cea, José Diaz Iturrieta, Raúl Pinto and Luis Quiroga. About 45 provincial trade union officers, six of whom are mentioned in the complaint, are said to have been arrested. While some of those arrested, such as Blest Riffo and Vargas Puebla, were imprisoned in Santiago, a considerable number of union officials had been interned in concentration camps at Pisagua, Maulilin and Melinka. At the end of February 1956, 13 out of the 23 members of the National Executive Committee of the C.U.T.CH had been imprisoned ; a further 12 had been declared to be " rebels " and might be arrested at any moment. Miguel Prádenas, head of the office of the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers in Chile, was arrested on 16 February. Nicomedes D. Alvarez, President of the Railway Workers' Federation, and Luis Ortega, Secretary of the Electricity and Gas Federation, are said to have been detained at the end of February. This communication from the W.F.T.U was accompanied by an " incomplete list of arrested trade unionists " giving their names, trade union membership, trade union office and place of detention. In its later communication of 16 May 1956 the W.F.T.U states that Professor Carlos Matús, director of High School No. 89 in Santiago and member of the National Executive of the C.U.T.CH, had been arrested and tried on 29 March 1956 " merely because he belonged to the National Executive of the C.U.T.CH.".
  160. 160 According to the communication sent by the National Bakers' Federation of Chile and other Chilean trade unions on 23 May 1956, Clotario Blest Riffo, Manuel Coliao, Baudilio Casanova, Isidoro Godoy Bravo, Juan Vargas Puebla, Julio Alegria, Carlos Matús, Héctor Durón, Ramón Dominguez, Luis Figueroa, Bernardo Araya and René Reyes, members of the National Executive Committee of the C.U.T.CH, were provisionally released after spending more than 100 days in prison.
• Allegations relating to the Violation of Trade Union Rights and Reprisals against Trade Unionists in Connection with a Strike of Bank Employees
  161. 161 The Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay, in its communication of 1 October 1956, and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions, in its communication of 6 November 1956-both of which are endorsed by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions of Salaried Employees, Technicians, Managerial Staff and Commercial Travellers and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions-allege that on the occasion of a bank employees' strike which took place in September 1956 the Chilean Government committed a violation of trade union freedom. The allegations can be summed up as follows : the employees' union of the Bank of London and South America asked the management to advance the end-of-year bonus due to them. The Bank refused and the staff decided to strike. Since the Federation of Bank Employees' Unions did not approve the strike, the trade union concerned instructed its legal adviser to seek a solution by means of conciliation. The strike was suspended, the Minister of Labour having agreed to act as mediator. Nevertheless, the Bank of London and South America made it a condition of the return of the staff that they should renounce their claim and, moreover, dismissed without justification the six employees who had spoken at the trade union meeting in favour of the strike. In view of these dismissals the Federation of Bank Employees' Unions, in accordance with a previous decision, called a general strike of bank employees. This strike was observed by all bank employees throughout the territory of Chile, including the employees of the State Bank. In view of this situation the Government ordered the military to take control of all banks and proclaimed the strike illegal. These measures were based on the provisions of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy which prohibits strikes not only in the case of public officials but also of " workers and employees of private undertakings and institutions which are responsible for the service of public utility" (article 3 (4)). The military summoned the employees to resume work under penalty of cancellation of their contracts of employment. The Government, on the other hand, ordered the detention of all union officials of the bank employees' unions. The bankers, backed by the military and the police, took repressive measures in order to " behead the trade union movement among bank officials ". Police persecution is alleged to have been forceful the employees are reported to have been invited to choose between prison and resumption of work. Their homes are alleged to have been broken into. In view of this situation the arrested leaders of the Bank Employees' Unions ordered from their prison that the strike should cease and work be resumed on 5 September 1956.
  162. 162 The dismissals which followed the strike are alleged to have been made upon the general instructions of the Bankers' Association. All the banks, with one exception, are alleged to have dismissed trade union officials. In the Banco Español-Chile, where the reprisals are alleged to have been particularly severe, even members of the previous trade union executive are alleged to have been dismissed. The Government is alleged to have refused to put an end to the reprisals of the bankers, declaring that since contracts of employment had been terminated in accordance with law the banks were entitled to dismiss staff. The complaints list the names of various persons affected by this wave of dismissals. The result of " the persecutions carried on by the Chilean Government against the trade union movement of that country " declares the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay, " was to destroy entirely the trade unions and the Federation of the Bank Employees, whose leaders and former leaders (totalling more than 1,000 officials) are left without employment and 90 per cent of them without a pension .... There are still over 350 bank employees detained in the Chilean prisons on account of their trade union activities."
  163. 163 Among the employees who were victims of this movement of reprisals is Mr. José Goldsack Donoso, President of the Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unions and member of the Steering Committee of Trade Union Action in Chile. When the strike broke out Mr. Goldsack Donoso, who was employed by the Banco Español-Chile, was in Havana as the delegate of the Chilean workers to the Sixth Conference of American States Members of the International Labour Organisation (September 1956). His appointment as delegate to that Conference was effected by a Decree of 22 August 1956 and it was the Ministry of Labour itself which obtained the necessary permission from the management of the Banco Español-Chile. During the absence of Goldsack Donoso, the military controller, Gustavo Vázquez Román, at the request of the management of the bank signed the cancellation of his contract of employment, and the bank refused to accept him upon his return from Havana. Mr. Goldsack Donoso had played no part at all in the strike, and the only reason for his arbitrary dismissal was the fact that he belonged to the trade union committee of his banking establishment. The International Federation of Christian Trade Unions considers it inadmissible that a State Member of the I.L.O should dismiss the Workers' delegate to an I.L.O. Conference "while he is carrying out his mandate ; measures of this kind impede the normal functioning of the I.L.O".
  164. 164 According to the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay, the American Confederation of Bank Employees has its headquarters in Santiago de Chile. Three members of its executive, Humberto Moreno, Ricardo Cruz Laso and Mario Bravo, in spite of being international trade union leaders and not being connected with the Chilean bank dispute, are alleged to have been imprisoned together with the Chilean trade union leaders. Ricardo Cruz Laso and Mario Bravo, who had taken no part in the strike, were released but lost their posts and their right to a pension. Humberto Moreno, General Secretary of the American Confederation of Bank Employees, was stated to be still in prison at the date at which the complaint was made, after having spent seven days in close confinement. He, too, is said to have lost his post.
  165. 165 To sum up, the complaining organisations accuse the Chilean Government of not having respected Chilean legislation concerning conciliation, supporting employers in their decision in favour of mass dismissal of the workers ; and of resorting to violent reprisals and upholding persecution of the trade unions. They request that the leaders of the Bank Employees' Unions under arrest be set free and that the Government should recognise the right of bank employees to exercise their trade union rights with full freedom.
• Allegations relating to the Violation of Trade Union Rights on the Occasion of a Strike in the Nitrate Mines of Pedro de Valdivia
  166. 166 The Miners' Trade Union International (W.F.T.U.) in communications dated 25 October and 26 November 1956, and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions in communications dated 29 October and 6 November 1956 alleged that since the beginning of 1956 the union of the nitrate mine of Pedro de Valdivia belonging to the Anglo-Lautaro Nitrate Co. had presented a list of claims of an economic and social nature. Since the beginning of negotiations the Government had supported the employers, raising obstacles to the settlement of this dispute. The workers were thus forced to resort to a strike in June 1956. This strike, which is claimed to have been quite lawful, affected some 8,500 workers or, taking into account their families, over 30,000 people. On 15 September 1956 the Government issued a decree ordering resumption of work, declaring the strike illegal and placing two nitrate undertakings under military control.
  167. 167 On 17 September 1956 the premises of the Pedro de Valdivia nitrate works union are said to have been attacked by a picket of carabineros with teargas bombs and firearms. According to the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions this attack took place on 14 September and the purpose of this armed action by the carabineros was to seize the union leaders during a trade union meeting. Shots were fired point-blank and four persons were killed and 20 others severely wounded. Several days later, on 20 September, the Government declared a state of siege in the provinces of Tarapacá and Antofagasta, suspending all Constitutional guarantees in the mining area, where it is alleged there was " a reign of police terror " and where there began " an implacable hunt against trade union leaders and the strike committee ". The Chilean trade union organisations and the main political parties are said to have condemned the attitude of the Government in this matter and the Chamber of Deputies appointed an investigation committee which went to the spot in order to inquire into the event and " assess the responsibility for this cowardly massacre ". On 25 October the C.U.T.CH held a public meeting of protest. Nevertheless the state of siege was stated to be continuing at the time when the complaint was lodged and trade union leaders were said to be prevented from exercising their rights.
• ANALYSIS OF THE REPLIES
• Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Unionists
• Analysis of the First Reply
  168. 168 The Government states in its communication dated 7 May 1956 that the procedure followed in the case of Mr. Isidoro Godoy Bravo was the same as that followed in relation to the other leaders of the C.U.T.CH. Since this organisation had declared a seditious strike, they were brought before the courts for breaches of various articles of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy and tried. Some of those arrested, such as Eduardo Long and Wenceslao Moreno, were later released, while others, such as Clotario Blest Riffo, Juan Vargas, Baudilio Casanova, Julio Alegria and Manuel Collao, were subsequently released on bail without the Government's having to intervene in the traditional independence of the courts. The fact that some courts had tried citizens for seditious activities of a political character does not mean, according to the Government, any violation of trade union rights. From September 1955 until February 1956 the whole or part of the country was under martial law. In such a situation the President of the Republic has power to remove persons to the interior of the country and to imprison them in places different from those allotted to ordinary offenders. Martial law was decreed on 6 January 1956 specifically to deal with the strike ordered by the C.U.T.CH. The exercise of the Constitutional powers of the President of the Republic cannot, in the Government's view, be termed arbitrary and it is not possible to maintain, as some of the complainants have done, that the country is under a dictatorship. The Senate recognised the legality of the acts of the Executive.
  169. 169 As regards the other persons mentioned in the complaint, especially in the list annexed to the communication dated 22 March 1956 from the World Federation of Trade Unions-a list which contains the names of more than 100 persons, indicating their trade union functions and the places in which they exercise them-the Government merely refers specifically to two of them, namely Eduardo Long and Wenceslao Moreno. As regards the remainder the Government simply indicates in its first reply that the measures taken against " certain citizens " in the exercise of the Constitutional powers of the Executive during an emergency involve no arbitrariness or violation of law.
• Previous Decisions of the Committee
  170. 170 As regards the detention of members of the National Council of the C.U.T.CH, including Isidoro Godoy Bravo, it appeared that they were prosecuted in the ordinary courts for alleged violation of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy. In such circumstances it did not seem possible for the Committee to give a decision on these allegations and any violation of trade union rights involved until the judicial authorities of Chile had determined the case in a final manner. However, in view of the fact that the detention for several months of these trade union leaders had prevented them from carrying out their trade union activities, the Committee considered that it should call the attention of the Chilean Government to the importance of giving every trade unionist arrested a possibility of enjoying the guarantees of due legal process, and requested it to inform the Committee of the decisions of the courts against the members of the National Committee of the C.U.T.CH.
  171. 171 As regards the hundred or so persons who were mentioned by name by the various complainants and with regard to whom the Government had provided only extremely vague information, the Committee, recalling its earlier remarks to the effect that, in case of precise allegations on the arrest of trade unionists, even during a state of emergency, the information from the Government must be sufficiently detailed to enable it to judge whether the detentions were for reasons of trade union activities by the persons detained and whether these had all the guarantees of due legal process, considered it necessary to request the Government of Chile for further information on the situation of all these detained persons mentioned in the complaints made on 22 March and 16 May 1956 by the World Federation of Trade Unions, on 6 April 1956 by the Confederation of Lath. American Workers, on 3 May 1956 by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, and on 23 May 1956 by the National Bakers' Federation of Chile and other Chilean trade unions.
• Analysis of the Second Reply
  172. 172 In a communication dated 19 October 1957 the Government complied with the Committee's request and supplied copies of the sentences of the Courts of First and Second Instance in the case in which members of the National Council of the Sole Union of Chilean Workers (C.U.T.CH.) were implicated.
  173. 173 According to the information supplied by the Government the following members of the National Council of the C.U.T.CH were prosecuted for calling an illegal strike in order to induce the Government to withdraw the Bill for the freezing of wages and prices : Messrs. Clotario Blest Riffo, Juan Vargas Puebla, Armando Aguirre, Ernesto Mirando and Baudilio Casanova.
  174. 174 The Court of First Instance found that the strike in question partly affected certain government services, municipal services, statutory authorities and semi-government agencies ; that the said strike had also disturbed the normal operations of national industries and consequently disturbed the normal operations of various public services and various services operating in the public interest in a variety of places ; that the above-mentioned acts constituted the offence against public order and the internal peace of the State defined in paragraph 4 of article 3 of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy ; that the abovementioned legal provision penalised any person who organised, maintained or encouraged an illegal stoppage or strike in any of the following circumstances (a) when such illegal activities caused or threatened to cause a disturbance of public order, (b) when they caused a disturbance of public utility services or services which were legally compelled to operate, and (c) when they caused any damage to an essential industry.
  175. 175 The court then continued as follows:
• Considering ... that it follows from what has been said that the defendants Vargas, Aguirre, Miranda and Casanova must be regarded as having confessed to committing the offence with which they are charged, since they admit that in their capacity as leaders of the C.U.T.CH they made the necessary arrangements to stage the strike that had been decided on and since the arguments which they bring up to the effect that the means used, namely the strike, to prevent legislation on the freezing of prices, wages and pensions, was legitimate, are not valid since those means were illegal ; ... that the confessions referred to are, moreover, corroborated by many newspaper articles ... and by the articles embodied in the dossier, from which it appears that the defendants aforesaid took many steps to organise, maintain or encourage the strike that took place on 9 and 10 January last, so that the Court must reject the allegations made by the defendants in replying to the charge to the effect that because they deny taking part in such illegal activities they should be acquitted ; ... that the negative answer given by the defendants in reply to the charge that they took part in the offence to which the charge relates must be rejected because they have not proved the validity of the reasons they adduce for this denial and because their responsibility is also corroborated, apart from what has already been said, by the statements of ... witnesses for the prosecution, all of them being police officials who assert that, they were on watch for 20 to 25 days before the strike in the vicinity of the C.U.T.CH; premises, and that they saw the leaders Clotario Blest, Baudilio Casanova, Juan Vargas, Armando Aguirre and Ernesto Mirando constantly going to those premises and stating aloud on a number of occasions that it was necessary to go on strike ; ... that the defendants Clotario Blest, Juan Vargas Puebla, Armando Aguirre and Ernesto Mirando have proved the attenuating circumstances of their irreproachable earlier conduct ... and that there are no other attenuating or aggravating circumstances ; ... that oral evidence submitted during the hearing of the case on behalf of the defendants Ernesto Mirando and Armando Aguirre ... to the effect that these defendants did not attend meetings of the Federal Council because all their attention was devoted to the dispute in the leather industry from 23 December 1955 until 5 January 1956 is not sufficient to establish the circumstance in question ; ... it is hereby declared that the defendants Clotario Blest Riffo, Juan Vargas Puebla, Armando Aguirre Ahumada, Ernesto Mirando Rivas and Baudilio Casanova Valenzuela, already found guilty of the offence specified in paragraph 4 of article 3 of Law No. 8987 for the Permanent Defence of Democracy, are sentenced to banishment for three years and one day ... and to the payment of a fine of 3,000 pesos, with costs ; the accused are also sentenced to the secondary penalty of complete and permanent, loss of political rights and of complete loss of the right to hold public posts or offices for the duration of the sentence.
  176. 176 The Court of Second Instance, to which there had been an appeal, confirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance as regards Clotario Blest, Juan Vargas and Baudilio Casanova. As regards Ernesto Mirando and Armando Aguirre, on the other hand, the Court of Second Instance considered that it had not been established that those two persons had attended the meetings of the Committee that decided on the strike ; consequently it annulled the judgment of the Court of First Instance as regards the conviction of these two accused and acquitted them on the charge laid against them by the Public Prosecutor and other parties.
  177. 177 In the covering letter that was sent with the copies of the abovementioned two judgments the Government stated that of the three persons finally sentenced, namely Messrs. Clotario Blest, Baudilio Casanova and Juan Vargas, the first two had since been pardoned by the President of the Republic. Finally, in a letter dated 28 January 1958, the Government states that Mr. Vargas also has been pardoned.
  178. 178 As regards the hundred or so other trade unionists mentioned by name in the various complaints received and concerning whom the Committee had asked the Government for further information (see paragraph 171 above) the Government states in its letter of 28 January 1958 that all the persons in question were liberated on 29 February 1956.
• Allegations relating to the Violation of Trade Union Rights and Reprisals against Trade Unionists in Connection with a Strike of Bank Employees
  179. 179 The Government submitted its observations on these allegations in a communication dated 10 October 1957.
  180. 180 In this it gives the following description of what occurred. At the beginning of the month of August 1956 the employees of the Bank of London and South America Limited asked that the date of payment of an ex gratia extraordinary bonus equivalent to one month's salary, which the firm considered it could pay in December of that year, should be brought forward. Since the bonus to be paid was an extraordinary one granted entirely at the option of the Bank the latter refused to pay it in advance. In view of this refusal the union decided to go on strike, as it did on 13 August. On 22 August the Bank informed the striking employees that it would allow the contracts of five salaried employees and one wage earner to lapse in accordance with its rights under the Labour Code. In the course of the negotiations that took place during that period the Bank firmly stood by its refusal to reconsider the dismissals and to pay the striking employees the days not worked if they came back to their posts. Giving this refusal as a reason for their actions, the staff of an overwhelming majority of Chilean banks proclaimed a strike.
  181. 181 On 25 August the Minister of Labour made the following official statement defining the Government's attitude to the bank strike : "At the moment the country is faced with a process of agitation which to the Government's know ledge is part of a new tactical plan that has superseded the one that was defeated in the general strike of 9 January last but has the same objective, namely the subversion of public order in order to enable the groups that are promoting it to achieve their anti-patriotic and demagogic objectives, as they did on that occasion." The Minister then paints a broad picture of the various forms of agitation which came to light within the country and of the consequences of this agitation on the general economic and social situation.
  182. 182 Since the bank strike entailed a complete stoppage of activities that were essential for the running of the country the President of the Republic made use of the powers granted to him by the National Constitution and the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy, and issued decrees ordering an immediate resumption of work in banks and appointed military controllers to run the banks affected by the strike which was from that moment regarded as illegal.
  183. 183 Since the holding of an illegal strike constitutes an offence the administrative authorities brought the matter before the courts. The following persons were accused of having committed the offence defined in and made punishable by paragraph 4 of article 3 of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy (already mentioned in paragraph 174 above) : Messrs. Mario Manuel Morales Manascero, Iván Katalinic Sánchez, Enrique Baeza Gajardo, Jorge Silva Gómez, Luis Alberto Urra Urra, Fernando Torres González, Mario Soza Briceno, Tomás Salcedo Fernández, Hernán Marambio Peni, Nicolas Campano Borlaf, Angel Araya Mercado and Humberto Moreno Casacuberta.
  184. 184 The first six were given suspended sentences of 100 days of imprisonment and are subject to supervision by the probation department of the public prison for one year ; they were moreover sentenced to pay fines of 6,000 pesos and to be suspended during the time of their sentences from any public functions or offices that might be theirs. The last six were acquitted.
  185. 185 As it was their duty to do in view of the fact that the strike was an illegal one, the custodians appointed by decree notified the bank employees that they had to return to work under penalty of seeing their contracts of employment terminated. " The complete disapproval of all sectors of the population for a strike such as this one ", the Government states, " and the futility of the pretext that gave rise to it, led the bank employees to return to work."
  186. 186 The work of the custodians was completed when the employees came back to work. The management of the various banks gave most of the employees new contracts of employment, for their previous contracts had expired. Many banks did not conclude new contracts with certain employees and a total of 132 salaried employees and five wage earners were not re-engaged.
  187. 187 Replying to the accusation that the legislation in force had been contravened, the Government states that it has at all times confined itself to observing the Constitution and the laws. As regards the reprisals against certain strikers, the Government states that it played no part in the dismissals or the non-renewal of contracts of certain employees and that such measures are the direct and exclusive responsibility of management.
  188. 188 As regards the discharge of Mr. Goldsack Donoso the Government states that when it learned that the controller of the Banco Español-Chile, which is the undertaking by which that trade unionist was employed, had been a party to an action instituted in the courts by the management of the bank against Mr. Goldsack Donoso, the Government immediately instructed the controller to desist, which he did without delay.
• Allegations relating to the Violation of Trade Union Rights on the Occasion of a Strike in the Nitrate Mines of Pedro de Valdivia
  189. 189 The Government submitted its observations on these allegations in a communication dated 13 December 1957.
  190. 190 The Government gives the following description of the course of events in the industrial dispute between the unions representing the personnel of the Maria Elena and Pedro de Valdivia works, on the one hand, and the Anglo Lautaro Nitrate Company, on the other. On 2 January 1956 the above-mentioned trade unions presented to the Anglo-Lautaro Nitrate Company a list of demands which gave rise to a collective labour dispute. At the time of the presentation of the demands the dispute involved 4,200 workers in the Maria Elena works and 4,346 in the Pedro de Valdivia works. On 27 February 1956 the trade unions applied to the conciliation board for the nitrate industry owing to the failure of negotiations with the company to effect a direct settlement. On 1 March 1956 the Anglo-Lautaro Nitrate Company rejected the demands.
  191. 191 The Government states that the incidents which occurred at the Pedro de Valdivia works between the police and the workers arose out of the enforcement of orders issued by the Chilean judicial authorities on the basis of com plaints filed by the employers. They were not at any time the result of steps taken by the Executive to maintain public order and peace. The Iquique Court of Appeals, acting on a complaint of the nitrate companies involved in the dispute, ordered the arrest of certain trade union leaders. In order to enforce this judicial decision, members of the police proceeded to the works and, in attempting to carry out their instructions, were violently opposed by the workers, numbering about 2,000. They were compelled to throw tear gas bombs, " but without results ". Since the workers were still aggressive the police resorted to firearms as a deterrent. The Government states that at no time were the workers fired on directly as claimed in the complaints ; " a few bullets were fired in the air but, in falling, they struck a number of workers, some of whom died as a result ".
  192. 192 In view of the need for maintaining order in the provinces of Tarapacá and Antofagasta the Government found it necessary to proclaim martial law on 19 September 1956. Subsequently, when order was restored, this measure was revoked on 17 October 1956.
  193. 193 Throughout the dispute the Government tried to reconcile the two parties, and it was only because the workers showed no interest in reaching a settlement that the Government was compelled to take the necessary steps to restore normal conditions in one of the vital industries of the nation. In its attempt at conciliation the Government even refrained from bringing up the illegality of the strike, which had, however, been called in contravention of the legal provisions in force.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Allegations relating to the Detention of Trade Unionists
  194. 194 The complainants allege that the officers of the Sole Union of Chilean Workers (C.U.T.CH) were arrested and prosecuted following a general strike called in order to exert pressure on the legislative authority to cause it to reject a proposed enactment relating to stabilisation of wages and prices. At its 17th Session, the Committee on Freedom of Association, considering that it could not reach conclusions as to whether or not freedom of association had been infringed in this instance until it had information as to the outcome of the judicial proceedings being taken in the matter, requested the Government to furnish information as to the results of the proceedings when they should become known. In response to this request the Government, by a communication dated 19 October 1957, furnished the texts of the judgments of the Courts of First and Second Instance which dealt with the matter.
  195. 195 It would appear from the judgments that, of the five persons accused who were sentenced by the Court of First Instance for having fomented a strike intended to prevent the promulgation of a law to stabilise wages and prices, which was declared by the Government to be an illegal strike, and was therefore punishable under the provisions of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy, two were acquitted by the Court of Second Instance. Subsequently, the remaining three were pardoned by the President of the Republic.
  196. 196 The Committee observes, from the observations and information furnished by the Government, that the accused appear to have enjoyed the guarantees of due legal process, inasmuch as they were tried by the ordinary courts, and not by special tribunals, had a right to appeal and were able to retain counsel to defend them.
  197. 197 The Committee notes that all the five persons originally sentenced have been liberated-two being acquitted by the Court of Second Instance and three being pardoned by the President.
  198. 198 In these circumstances, having regard to the considerations set forth in paragraphs 195 to 197 above, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide-while reaffirming the observations which it made in paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Committee's 26th Report concerning the severity of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy with respect to the question of strikes, and suggesting to the Government once again that it might consider the possibility of re-examining the provisions of that law in the light of the generally accepted principles with respect to freedom of association-that it is inappropriate to pursue further the examination of this aspect of the case.
  199. 199 With regard to the hundred or so other trade unionists alleged to have been arrested and referred to in particular in the list appended to the complaint of the W.F.T.U, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note with satisfaction of the statement by the Government that all the persons in question were liberated on 29 February 1956 and to decide that this aspect of the case, therefore, does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to the Violation of Trade Union Rights and Reprisals against Trade Unionists in Connection with a Strike of Bank Employees
  200. 200 The complainants allege that, following a strike called in support of, occupational demands, several employees of the Bank of London and South America were dismissed, and the latter event, in turn, led to a sympathy and protest strike by the staffs of most of the banks in the country. In these circumstances, the Government ordered an immediate resumption of work and the placing of banking institutions under State control. The controllers appointed by the State notified the employees that they must resume work on pain of having their contracts terminated. The period of control having ended after work was resumed, the managements of various banks gave new employment contracts, previously existing contracts having expired, but did not, it is alleged, renew the contracts of 137 employees because of their participation in the strike.
  201. 201 It is further alleged that, the strike having been declared illegal by virtue of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy, 12 trade union leaders were put on trial, six being convicted of breaches of paragraph 4 of article 3 of the said Law.
  202. 202 It is alleged that 137 persons were the object of sanctions after the bank strike (dismissal, non-renewal of contracts of employment). On a number of occasions the Committee, in accordance with the principle which it has always followed of considering that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence when freedom of association is involved, has expressed the view that the right to strike of workers and workers' organisations constitutes an essential means of promoting and defending their occupational interests. The Committee considers that acts of discrimination in connection with a peaceful strike are inconsistent with the maintenance of satisfactory industrial relations and incompatible with the best industrial practice, and recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the undesirability of persons appointed temporarily by the Government to control the banks falling below this standard.
  203. 203 The complainants allege more particularly that the leaders against whom measures were taken following the bank strike included Mr. Goldsack Donoso, President of the Latin American Confederation of Christian Trade Unions and member of the Steering Committee of Trade Union Action in Chile. At the moment when the strike was called, Mr. Goldsack Donoso, an employee of the Banco Español-Chile, was in Havana, as Chilean Workers' delegate to the Sixth Conference of American States Members of the International Labour Organisation (September 1956). Mr. Goldsack Donoso had been named as delegate to the Conference by a Decree dated 22 August 1956 and it was the Ministry of Labour itself which obtained from the management of the Banco Español-Chile the necessary leave of absence to enable him to attend the Conference. The complainants also allege that, during the absence of Mr. Goldsack Donoso, the military controller placed in charge of the bank signed the cancellation of his contract, and that, when Mr. Goldsack Donoso returned from Havana, the bank refused to take him back.
  204. 204 In its communication dated 10 October 1957 the Government simply states that, when it learned that the controller of the Banco Español-Chile had been a party to an action instituted against Mr. Goldsack Donoso by the management of the bank, it ordered him immediately to desist, which he did without delay.
  205. 205 It would therefore appear from the information available to the Committee that, at a time when it was physically impossible for him to take part in the strike because, when it broke out, he was in Havana, attending as a Workers' delegate the Sixth Conference of American States Members of the I.L.O, Mr. Goldsack Donoso's contract of employment was, like the contracts of the striking bank employees, cancelled by the government controller temporarily responsible for the management of the institution by which he was employed and that, when governmental control was suspended, the management of the bank refused to take him back into its employment. When the question came to be considered by the Government, the latter ordered its representative the controller of the bank-to cease to be a party, as he was in the first instance, to the judicial proceedings instituted by the management of the bank against Mr. Goldsack Donoso under the provisions of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy and, in particular, the provisions of that Law relating to unlawful strikes.
  206. 206 On a previous occasion, the Committee expressed the view that no member of the Governing Body should be interfered with in any way to prevent his acting in his capacity as a member of the Governing Body. It considers it equally important that no delegate to any organ or conference of the I.L.O should be interfered with in any way to prevent or to deter him from carrying out his functions. It is evident that if a delegate, at a time when he is attending a conference convened by the International Labour Organisation, especially where it takes place in a country other than his own, can become the subject of measures such as those taken in the case of Mr. Donoso, the possibility of such measures being taken is such as to prevent or to deter the delegate from carrying out his functions.
  207. 207 Moreover, the Government would appear to be conscious of this situation, because it invokes the fact that it ordered its representative not to appear as a party in the judicial proceedings instituted against Mr. Goldsack Donoso by the management of the bank, thus demonstrating its intention of remaining passive in relation to this specific aspect of the matter.
  208. 208 However, even if it were to be proved that the Government did not participate in the measures taken in the case of Mr. Goldsack Donoso-and the fact that it was a representative of the Government, the controller of the bank, who first took the initiative in cancelling Mr. Goldsack Donoso's contract implies governmental responsibility-the Committee considers that it is the duty of the Government both to refrain itself from taking measures calculated to interfere with a delegate to an I.L.O. Conference in the exercise of his functions, and to use its influence and take all reasonable steps to ensure that such a delegate is not in any way prejudiced by his acceptance of functions as a delegate or by his conduct as a delegate, and that measures on other grounds should not be taken against him in his absence but should await his return, so that he may be in a position to defend himself.
  209. 209 The initiation of measures by a government controller against a delegate in his absence is inconsistent with the duty of the Government as described above. In these circumstances, it would hardly appear to be sufficient for the Government to dissociate itself from the future course and consequences of the measures initiated. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to its view that it would be appropriate for the Government to take steps to ensure either that the measures taken against Mr. Goldsack Donoso are revoked or that he is fully compensated.
• Allegations relating to the Violation of Trade Unions Rights on the Occasion of a Strike in the Nitrate Mines of Pedro de Valdivia
  210. 210 The complainants allege that a strike in the nitrate mines was severely put down by the police (four persons killed and 20 injured), that an investigation committee was sent to the spot in order to determine the responsibility for the incidents which took place, that the Government declared the strike illegal under the provisions of the Law for the Permanent Defence of Democracy, and that the Government declared a state of siege in the mining areas affected by the strike. The Government admits that some workers were killed and others injured, but declares that the use of force by the security forces was due to the aggressive attitude of the strikers. After the employers had filed a complaint against the strikers, the Iquique Court of Appeal ordered the arrest of certain workers' leaders. When the police attempted to implement the order of arrest, declares the Government, they were attacked by the workers, and it was then that they used their firearms to frighten the workers. But, states the Government, shots were never aimed at the workers ; the Government declares : " a few bullets were fired in the air but, in falling, they struck a number of workers, some of whom died as a result ".
  211. 211 In a number of previous cases the Committee has recommended the dismissal of allegations of intervention by security forces when the facts have shown that such intervention was limited to the maintenance of public order and did not restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to strike, but it implied in those cases that it would have regarded the use of police for strike-breaking purposes as an infringement of a trade union right. The Committee recommended the dismissal of such allegations in Case No. 152 (United Kingdom-Northern Rhodesia);; it did so, however, only after noting that there was no evidence which made it appear that there was any loss of human life or injury caused to persons on the occasion in question.
  212. 212 In the present case, in view of the different accounts given by the complainants and by the Government, the Committee considers that it is difficult for it to determine the exact reasons for the police intervention or to decide as to whether the strikers or the police were responsible for violence taking place. The Committee notes, nevertheless, that both the Government and the complainants agree that some persons were killed, and, also, that a state of siege was declared, normal Constitutional guarantees thus being suspended.
  213. 213 In view of the imprecise nature of the information furnished both in the complaint and in the Government's reply and of the differences in the accounts given as to the origins of the events complained of the Committee, while recognising that it is impossible for it at the moment, on the basis of the information available, to determine with certainty whether the exercise of trade union rights was actually violated, nevertheless considers that it should emphasise, as it has done in a number of earlier cases', that the institution, by the action of the government concerned, of an independent inquiry is a particularly appropriate method of ascertaining the facts and attributing responsibility when disturbances involving loss of human life have occurred.
  214. 214 In these circumstances, in view of the serious nature of the incidents which occurred, the exceptional situation in which the events appear to have taken place and the information communicated by the complainants to the effect that a committee of investigation was instituted for the purpose of determining the responsibility for the incidents in question, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body whether a committee of investigation was instituted and, if so, to inform the Governing Body as to the results of its inquiry.