Interim Report - REPORT_NO103, 1968

1. 228. The complaints, additional information and new allegations presented by the complainants are contained in four communications submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and dated 24 April, 5 and 29 May and 15 June 1967, and in six other communications from the same body, dated 9, 16 and 31 May, 6 June, 23 October and 7 November 1967. All of the ten communications mentioned were submitted to the Government in letters dated 26 April, 15 and 25 May, 14 and 28 June, 1 November and 1 December 1967.
2. 229. A communication of 29 May 1967 from the Permanent Delegate of Spain accredited to the international organisations in Geneva stated that in view of the nature of some of the allegations submitted to the Government in an I.L.O communication of 15 May 1967, and because further information was still awaited, the Government was as yet unable to submit complete and detailed observations. The Government did, however, supply definite observations on the allegation made in connection with the expulsion of an I.C.F.T.U represen-tative from Spanish territory.
3. 230. At its meeting in November 1967 the Committee postponed its consideration of the case, since it still awaited further observations from the Government.
4. 231. 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

• Allegation relating to the Expulsion of a Representative of an International Trade Union Organisation
  232. 232 In its complaint of 5 May 1967 the I.C.F.T.U alleges that its legal adviser, Mr. Marc De Kock, an attorney, who was sent to Spain by the I.C.F.T.U for the purpose of helping detained or deported trade unionists to obtain their freedom or cancellation of the deportation order, was taken to the frontier by the police without his receiving any explanation as to why this was done. The complainant organisation protests against the treatment meted out to its representative who, it says, was prevented from assisting free trade unions in violation of Convention No. 87, which provides for the right of trade unions to maintain international relations.
  233. 233 The I.C.F.T.U supplied further information in respect of this affair in its communication of 29 May 1967, where it also refers to various forms of detention and repression, which, according to the complainants, have been used against trade union leaders and workers, some of them belonging to trade union organisations which have no legal status such as the General Union of Spanish Workers, affiliated to the I.C.F.T.U. On 1 May 1967, says the I.C.F.T.U, Mr. De Kock gave notice of his presence and requested interviews with the Civil Governor of Vizcaya and with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Interior, and Labour, and with the Secretary-General of the Movement. Having been informed by telephone that the Secretary-General of the Movement would receive him in Madrid on 6 May, Mr. De Kock prepared to fly from Bilbao to Madrid, only to find himself detained at Bilbao airport on 4 May by the police, whence he was taken to the French frontier by can The police explained to him that they were under orders to " ask him to leave Spanish territory ".
  234. 234 In reply to the complaint mentioned in paragraph 232 the Government states that the purpose of Mr. De Kock's behaviour in settling in Bilbao and giving himself the title of " I.C.F.T.U representative " was to try to gather information on the " social and political atmosphere " in Vizcaya and on the number of detained persons. According to the Government, he wrote to the authorities asking for information on the number of detained persons, their legal status, rights and guarantees, the time that they were expected to remain in such a situation and the possibility of visiting these detained persons in order to observe their physical and moral state, all of which implies a manifest distrust of the Spanish authorities and institutions.
  235. 235 The Government points out that these detentions were made in accordance with the legislation in force in Spain and that representation before the competent courts and tribunals had been provided by members of the Spanish College of Attorneys, the only persons qualified to defend the interests of those they represent, as is the case with all judicial systems.
  236. 236 There was therefore no justification for Mr. De Kock's interference as an attorney, says the Government, and his activities as " representative of an international organisation " might imply an attempt to exert moral pressure on judges and tribunals, whose impartiality should at all times be safeguarded. These are the reasons why Mr. De Kock and the person accompanying him were invited to leave Spanish territory; at no time were they given the humiliating treatment to which the allegations refer.
  237. 237 The Government considers that on neither count are there any grounds whatever for protest, either as concerns the way in which Mr. De Kock was treated or the fact that his requests to the authorities went unanswered, " since at no time was he authorised to interfere in the country's internal affairs ". The Government recalls that this same person had been in Spain previously, attending the proceedings of the Tribunal for Public Order and that no restrictions of any kind were imposed upon him since, the Government adds, " on previous occasions he did not attempt to intervene in matters which were of the exclusive competence of the Spanish authorities ".
  238. 238 Finally, the Government points out that Spain has not ratified Convention No. 87 to which the allegation refers.
  239. 239 With various cases in the past, the Committee has called attention to the fact that the right of national worker organisations to be affiliated to international organisations normally implies the right of those national organisations to maintain contact with the international worker organisations to which they are affiliated.
  240. 240 In the opinion of the Committee the present case involves certain special circumstances, special, that is, by comparison with other cases previously examined by the Committee. The I.C.F.T.U representative appears to have begun the business entrusted to him, the purpose of which was presumably to assist in obtaining freedom for some trade unionists who had been detained and the cancellation of deportation orders issued against others. It appears that some of the trade unionists in question belonged to organisations affiliated to the I.C.F.T.U, organisations whose legal status the Committee considers it unnecessary to examine on this occasion since it has already done so with previous cases relating to Spain. The I.C.F.T.U representative in question appears to have had his work interrupted and the interview which he had arranged with a minister cancelled, because the authorities, believing that some of the activities inherent to his mission, or undertaken by himself, constituted interference in internal affairs, arranged for him to be taken to the frontier. The Government points out that on a previous occasion the same I.C.F.T.U representative was allowed to accomplish a mission in Spain. In view of this, and considering that the incident to which the complaint refers could have been avoided through mutual discussion leading to a settlement, the Committee recommends that the Governing Body stress the usefulness, in situations of this kind, of seeking an opportunity for agreement through appropriate discussions in which governments as well as the representatives of international trade union organisations may fully clarify their respective positions.
• Allegations relating to the Detention and Deportation of Trade Unionists
  241. 241 In its communication of 24 April 1967 the I.C.F.T.U lists a series of acts which, in its opinion, are evidence of constant violation and repression of trade union rights and freedoms in Spain. This situation appears to have been aggravated by a decree of 21 April 1967 by which the guarantees ensuring freedom of residence, the inviolability of domicile and protection against arbitrary detention were suspended in the province of Vizcaya. The specific facts referred to by the I.C.F.T.U are the following: the detention of 58 trade unionists in Madrid in December 1966, among them eight leaders of the free trade union organisation Unión Sindical Obrera; the detention of 38 trade unionists between 30 January 1966 and 9 January 1967 in Guipúzcoa, Andalucia, Catalonia and Madrid; the sentencing on 16 December 1966 of Evaristo Martinez, a member of the free trade union organisation General Union of Workers, for having distributed trade union propaganda requesting workers to refrain from voting in union elections; the breaking of worker strikes and demonstrations in January and February 1967; detentions, fines and the torture of workers in Vizcaya, following the strikes of April 1967. According to the I.C.F.T.U, the Government continues to describe the free trade union organisations as illegal, while detaining and sentencing their leaders. The I.C.F.T.U requests that an I.L.O inquiry mission be sent out, in particular to the province of Vizcaya.
  242. 242 The I.C.F.T.U supplied precise and detailed information in support of the allegations mentioned in the previous paragraph in a communication dated 29 May 1967, information which was supplemented by that contained in another communication of 15 June 1967 (including the names of detained, deported or prosecuted workers).
  243. 243 In their complaint of 9 May 1967 the I.F.C.T.U and the European Organisation of the I.F.C.T.U protested " on behalf of affiliated free trade union organisations " against the " brutal measures adopted by the Spanish authorities in order to prevent workers from fully exercising the trade union freedom and rights recognised in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98". These complainants request I.L.O intervention in securing the freedom of " all workers arrested, detained or deported as a result of the demonstration of 1 May ".
  244. 244 In its communication of 16 May 1967 the I.F.C.T.U supplied additional information which referred, among other things, to the promulgation of the decree of April 1967 by which articles 14, 15 and 18 of the Charter of the Spanish Peoples was suspended for three months in the province of Vizcaya; to an appeal launched by the Euzkadi Trade Union Alliance to workers to demonstrate in Bilbao on 1 May, following the promulgation of the aforementioned decree; to the detentions and deportations which were thought to have been made between 22 April and 1 May; and to the intervention of the authorities in preventing and dispersing demonstrations in Bilbao, San Sebastián, Eibar, Vitoria, Pamplona and Villafranca de Oria. The complainants also mentioned the detention and trial of 14 persons in Barcelona, following the demonstrations of 1 May.
  245. 245 Together with its communication of 31 May 1967 the I.F.C.T.U supplied a list of deported persons, which was completed in another I.F.C.T.U communication dated 6 June 1967. In this latter communication the complainant organisation supplied a list of the workers who were presumed to be detained in Bilbao jail.
  246. 246 In its communications of 23 October and 7 November 1967 the I.F.C.T.U supplied the names of 11 " Basque trade unionists of Christian persuasion " whom it is thought were prosecuted in Madrid on 14 October 1967. Three of them were believed to have been released, but the rest had suffered imprisonment and fines in various forms.
  247. 247 To date, the observations of the Government on the allegations referred to in paragraphs 241 to 246 above have not been received. From the text of the Government's communication dated 29 May 1967 it appears that, in connection with the original complaints presented in this case by the I.C.F.T.U and the I.F.C.T.U, it was as yet impossible to send complete and detailed observations because of a lack of more precise information.
  248. 248 In view of the fact that the complainants have supplied detailed information in support of their allegations in the communications whose texts have been sent to the Government, the Committee, before proceeding to an examination of the case, would be grateful if the Government would send at the earliest possible opportunity its observations on the allegations referred to in paragraphs 241 to 246 above.