Definitive Report - REPORT_NO101, 1968

1. 18. The Committee examined this case previously at its meetings held in November 1964, November 1965 and May 1967, when it submitted to the Governing Body the interim reports contained in paragraphs 171 to 196 of its 78th Report, paragraphs 164 to 185 of its 87th Report and paragraphs 108 to 120 of its 98th Report respectively.,
2. 19. The Dominican Republic has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 20. It was alleged that Mr and Mrs. Monegro, General Secretary and Secretary respectively of the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO), had been compelled to leave the country.
2. 21. When it examined the case at its meeting in May 1967, the Committee observed that there was a discrepancy between the statements of the complainants - namely that Mr and Mrs. Monegro were compelled to go into exile - and the observations sent by the Government, according to which they had left the country voluntarily.
3. 22. The Committee therefore recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to inform it whether Mr and Mrs. Monegro were now in the country and at liberty or free to return there or, if not, to specify the nature of the alleged offences and whether court proceedings had been taken against them.
4. 23. This request for information was sent to the Government in a letter dated 12 June 1967, to which the Government replied by a communication dated 25 August 1967.
5. 24. In this communication the Government states firstly that no legal action has ever been taken against Mr and Mrs. Monegro. It goes on to state that the couple are again living in the country and that Mrs. Monegro has been employed since 10 March 1967 in the Community Development Office of Santo Domingo.
6. 25. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that no purpose would be served by further examination of this aspect of the case.
7. 26. The complainants further alleged that the workers' leaders, Héctor Porfirio Quezada, Julio Anibal Garcia Dickson and Alberto Laracuent, had been murdered in the large sugar producing centre of La Romana.
8. 27. As the Government had not answered this allegation, the Committee, at its meeting in May 1967, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its observations on this subject.
9. 28. In its communication of 25 August 1967 the Government makes the following statement: " The disappearance of the workers' leaders, Héctor Porfirio Quezada, Julio Anibal Garcia Dickson and Alberto Laracuent, remains a mystery to the Dominican legal authorities since it occurred in 1947, that is to say during the Trujillo régime, when the trade union federations which have submitted the complaint did not exist."
10. 29. The Committee notes the Government's statement that its investigations have thrown no light on the fate of the above-mentioned persons. Considering nevertheless that the events to which the allegations in question refer took place too long ago for a continued investigation to serve any useful purpose, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
11. 30. The complainants also alleged that trade union leaders Rodolfo Sessman and Luis Polivio Padilla had been arrested and imprisoned.
12. 31. At its meeting in May 1967 the Committee, noting that the Government had not made any observations on this aspect of the case, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to furnish its observations and, in particular, to specify the position of Rodolfo Sessman and Polivio Padilla with regard to the law.
13. 32. In its communication of 25 August 1967 the Government states that the persons in question are free and that " they are in no way being persecuted under the rule of law prevailing in the country ". The Government indicates that Mr. Polivio Padilla has been a workers' representative on the State Sugar Council since this organisation was set up in July 1966.
14. 33. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
15. 34. The complainants alleged lastly, in somewhat vague terms, that a " yellow " trade union had been set up by the municipal authorities of the National District and that the Government supported the Dominican Confederation (CONATRAL), the leaders of which were alleged to be the only ones to enjoy any safeguards.
16. 35. As the Government did not answer these allegations, the Committee, at its meeting in May 1967, recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to furnish its observations thereon.
17. 36. In its communication of 25 August 1967 the Government states that the workers of the National District are workers like any others and that it is not true that the municipality operates a " yellow " trade union. It also asserts that it is totally untrue that the Government has a preference for any particular trade union.
18. 37. The Committee notes that the Government's statements are only countered by the complainants with very general allegations, lacking in specific facts. Consequently, considering that the complainants have not produced proof of their allegations, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.