Definitive Report - REPORT_NO76, 1964

1. 61. The complaints of the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unionists are contained in a communication dated 30 December 1963 and enlarged upon in a further communication dated 6 February 1964. The Government has forwarded its observations in two letters dated 15 February and 7 May 1964.
2. 62. Costa Rica 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 63. In their first communication the complainants announced that the headquarters of the Christian Farm Workers' Front in the city of San José had been broken into by the police. In their second communication the complainants confirmed this statement, adding that the public authorities had subsequently given the necessary assurances and guarantees that freedom of association would be respected, following the protests received from other trade union organisations abroad. In the same letter the complainants stated that on 22 January 1964 Mr. Claudio Gamboa, a senior official of the Christian Farm Workers' Front of Costa Rica, had been arrested while on a visit to the Puntarenas district. He was released after being interrogated several times, and later the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare explained to him how it had happened.
2. 64. The Federation stated categorically in the final paragraph of its second communication that it wished its complaint to be held in suspense until the situation in Costa Rica became clearer.
3. 65. In its communication of 15 February 1964 the Government announced that, in view of the various protests that had been received, an investigation had been made into the alleged forcible entry by the police into the union premises. During the investigation contact was made with Mr. Claudio Gamboa, who stated that while a Christmas party was in progress at the headquarters of the Christian Farm Workers' Front in San José two members of the armed police came in and after staying a short time left without any further developments. Mr. Gamboa spoke to them, but did not ask them why they were there. At a later meeting at which the Minister of Public Security, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, Mr. Gamboa and the two policemen concerned were present, the latter declared that while on their beat during the Christmas festivities they passed in front of the union offices in question and were invited by a man who came out to join the party. They stayed for a few minutes and had a short conversation with Mr. Gamboa, and then left without in any way - disturbing the guests at the party. According to the Government Mr. Gamboa did not deny this account, but argued that he had lodged his complaint with a number of international trade union organisations because of the potential threat to trade union freedoms involved in actions such as these, which might create a precedent.
4. 66. The Government added that it was made quite clear at the meeting that the two policemen were acting on their own account and at no time had any intention of breaking in. The Minister of Labour fully explained the position to Mr. Gamboa on behalf of the Government. Mr. Gamboa later told the Minister that he was getting in touch with the trade union organisations to which he had sent his complaint to tell them of the satisfactory explanation given by the Government and ask them for permission to withdraw his complaint. The Government enclosed copies of the cables sent by Mr. Gamboa to the organisations in question.
5. 67. In its communication of 7 May 1964 the Government referred to the complaint concerning the arrest of Mr. Claudio Gamboa on 22 January 1964 in the Puntarenas district. According to the Government, Mr. Gamboa had gone to Puntarenas to deal with a social problem involving itinerant salesmen. The meeting he attended was alleged to be communist-inspired, and the commandant requested Mr. Gamboa to accompany him to his office. There his identity was established and he was asked a number of questions, after which he was allowed to leave. The Government made inquiries and gave Mr. Gamboa a full explanation of what had happened. Furthermore, the Government gave specific instructions to the competent authorities to take steps to ensure that the Constitutional principle of freedom of association continued to be respected.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 68. Without going into the substance of the allegations made, the Committee notes that Mr. Gamboa, a Christian trade union official in Costa Rica, has asked a number of trade union organisations, including the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unionists, for permission to withdraw the complaint he made of forcible entry into the premises of the Christian Farm Workers' Front, and that the Federation itself, in its communication of 6 February 1964, requests that its complaint be left in suspense until the position of that organisation in Costa Rica becomes clearer.
2. 69. A question of procedure arises here of a kind which the Committee has already had to consider in similar cases in the past. In Case No. 66, concerning Greece, the Committee expressed the view that the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while constituting a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, is not in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. On that occasion the Committee considered that in this respect it should be guided by the conclusions approved by the Governing Body in 1937 and 1938 with regard to two representations submitted by the Madras Labour Union for Textile Workers and by the Société de Bienfaisance des Travailleurs de l'Ile Maurice, in accordance with article 23 of the Constitution of the Organisation (now article 24). The Governing Body at that time established the principle that, from the moment that a representation was submitted to it, it alone was competent to decide what effect should be given to it, and that " the withdrawal by the organisation making the representation is not always proof that the representation is not receivable or is not well founded". The Committee considers that, in implementing this principle, it is free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence. It has been pointed out by the Committee that cases might exist in which the withdrawal of a complaint by the organisation presenting it would be a result not of the fact that the complaint had become without purpose but of pressure exercised by the government against the complainants, the latter being threatened with an aggravation of the situation if they did not consent to this withdrawal.
3. 70. In the present case it would appear from the information supplied by the Government, taken in conjunction with that contained in the complainants' communication of 6 February 1964, that the problems raised have been adequately taken care of the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare having given an explanation of what had occurred and issued instructions to local authorities to ensure respect for the principle of freedom of association.