Definitive Report - REPORT_NO186, June 1978

A. Background

1. 6. Since 1971 the Committee has been called upon to examine numerous complaints of infringement of freedom of association in the Dominican Republic, presented by the following organisations: world Confederation of Labour (WCL), world Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), World Federation of Teachers' Unions, General Workers' Federation (CGT), National Federation of Dockworkers, Stevedores' Union (POASI), National Union of Heavy Machinery Operators (SINOMAPE), National Union of Telephone Workers (SNTT). These complaints have been examined as Cases Nos. 672, 768, 802, 819, 822 and 847.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 7. In these complaints allegations were made relating, inter alia, to the death, arrest and banishment of trade unionists, dismissals on account of trade union activities, the dismantling of trade union organisations, intervention by the public authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions (meetings, elections, trade union funds), the occupation of trade union premises, interference with the right to strike and the trade union rights of teachers and agricultural workers.
2. 8. The subject-matter of these complaints was brought to the attention of the Government as the complaints were received. The Government provided comments on several of the allegations.
3. 9. The Committee examined Case No. 672 at its sessions in May and November 1972, when it submitted interim reports to the Governing Body, A further interim report was submitted by the Committee to the Governing Body with respect to Case No. 672 and Cases Nos. 768, 802, 819 and 822 in May 1976.2 The Committee again examined all the cases pending with regard to the Dominican Republic at its November 1977 session 3

B. Request for direct contacts

1. 10. At its may 1976 session the Committee observed that although the Government had submitted comments and information on several of the allegations made, the Committee possessed insufficient information to enable it to reach conclusions at that stage regarding the substance of the various issues raised. The Committee recalled, moreover, that it had already examined, on several occasions, cases concerning the Dominican Republic which involved allegations similar to those made in the present cases. In these circumstances, the Committee considered that it would be very useful to apply the direct contacts procedure. The Governing Body, accordingly, requested the Government to consider the possibility of giving its consent to the carrying out of a study in the Dominican Republic of the facts surrounding the complaints by a representative of the Director-General, who would report to the Committee thereon.
2. 11. No reply having been received from the Government in November 1976 and February 1977 the Committee invited it to give its early consideration to the request for direct contacts and to communicate its decision in this connection as soon as possible.
3. 12. In May 1977, in the continued absence of any communication from the Government in this connection, the Committee decided to apply the special procedure provided for in paragraphs 23 and 24 of its 164th Report. Under this procedure, the Government was immediately informed that the Chairman of the Committee would, on behalf of the Committee, make contact with its representatives attending the 63rd Session of the International Labour Conference, draw their attention to the particular cases involved and discuss with them the reasons for the delay in transmitting the observations requested. The Chairman was then to report to the Committee on the results of such contacts. However, since the Government did not designate any representative to the 63rd Session of the Conference, the said procedure could not be applied.
4. 13. In a letter dated 2 August 1977, the Government stated that it was considering the request it had received to accept the visit of a representative of the Director-General, and added that a final reply would be given when it was in the interests of the country to do so.
5. 14. At its November 1977 session the Committee expressed its regret at the Government's delay in acceding to the request made of it to give its consent to the visit of a representative of the Director-General. In this connection, the Committee emphasised that the purpose of the whole procedure was to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and expressed its confidence that, if this procedure protected governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their part would recognise the importance for the protection of their own good name of co-operating with the Committee in every way so that it could examine the allegations fully and seek possible solutions to the problems involved. The Committee moreover laid particular stress on the importance it attached to the direct contacts procedure.
6. 15. In these circumstances, the Governing Body, on the Committee's recommendation,
   • (a) urged the Government to give its consent without delay to an inquiry into the trade union situation being carried out in the Dominican Republic by a representative of the Director-General;
   • (b) requested the Director-General to contact the Government at the highest possible level so as to express the concern of the Committee and to insist that the Government should give a favourable response to the request for direct contacts.
7. 16. In February 1978, the Committee noted that in spite of the reminders sent to the Government on this question the Government had not replied. The Committee deplored the fact that the Government of the Dominican Republic had shown no desire to cooperate with the procedures available in the field of trade union rights. In these circumstances, the Governing Body decided that, in the event of no reply being received from the Government before its next session, wider publicity should be given to the allegations, to the replies of the Government, to the recommendations of the Committee and to the obstructive attitude of the Government's.
8. 17. Since then, no reply has been received from the Government.
9. 18. The Dominican Republic has ratified both 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).

C. Summary of the allegations and the Government's replies

• (i) Death of trade unionists
  19. 19 The WCL alleged that Florinda Muñoz Soriano, a peasants' leader, had been shot dead by an overseer of landowner Pablo Diaz at Hato Viejo. According to the complainants, Florinda Muñoz Soriano was a regional leader of the Federation of Christian Peasants' Leagues, affiliated to the Latin American Peasants' Federation, the CLAT and the WCL, and was leader of 500 workers and their families who were refusing to give up under pressure from landowner Pablo Diaz land which they had possessed for over half a century. On 1 November 1974, continued the WCL, while she was carrying out farm duties, an overseer had fired at her twice with a shotgun without warning and killed her. Pablo Diaz was also a building contractor to the Government and, according to the Autonomous Confederation of Christian Trade Unions, he actually used policemen to repress peasants in the Hato Viejo area by force.
  20. 20 According to the WCL, another peasants' trade union leader, Dionisio Frias, had been murdered on 5 July 1975 by landowner Virgilio Febes. This crime occurred in the district of El Cuey, in the Province of Seygo.
  21. 21 Allegations were also made about the failure to take action against the manager of the firm of Dulcera Dominicana, Mr. Constantin Bolonotto, although he had attempted to murder the general secretary of the employees' union, José Cristóbal Durán, with a gun.
  22. 22 The CGT, for its part, claimed that the lives of trade union officials were in danger and listed the names of 14 leaders murdered since 1967, mainly in the agricultural sector.
  23. 23 With regard to the allegations relating to the murder of Florinda Muñoz Soriano, the Government stated in February 1976 that the courts had held several hearings in respect of this case and that the case was still pending.
• (ii) Arrest and banishment of trade unionists
  24. 24 The complainant organisations referred to the arrest of a large number of trade union officials and members. A number of organisations in the Dominican trade union movement were involved.
  25. 25 Among the organisations affected were the National Federation of Unionised Free-Lance Chauffeurs (UNACHOSIN), whose General Secretary, Mr. Albuquerque, had been arrested with 39 other members. The leaders of the Stevedores' Union (POASI), and in particular Marcelino Vasquez, had been arrested more than ten times.
  26. 26 Officials of the Single Federation for the National District and of the Union of Workers of the Dominican Oil Refinery, members of the CGT, had also been arrested. According to the WFTU, these events had taken place on 15 September 1974 and the police had arrested in all 43 trade union delegates and officials of the CGT, including Francisco Antonio Santos, General Secretary, Dionisio Martinez Vargas, Organising Secretary, and Aguilés Maleno, a member of the executive bureau.
  27. 27 On 13 June 1975 three CGT leaders had been arrested, namely Francisco Antonio Santos, General Secretary (already mentioned in the preceding paragraph), Julio de Peña Váldez, Training Secretary, and Eugenio Pérez Cepeda, Claims and Disputes Secretary. The WFTU claimed in this connection that the Government had used a landing of guerrillas as a pretext for the taking of repressive action against the labour movement it pointed out that Francisco Antonio Santos and Eugenio Pérez Cepeda had been arrested at the national police headquarters, where they had gone to ask for explanations about the arrest of Julio de Peña Váldez and other union members. In addition, searches had been carried out at the homes of Dionisio Martinez Vargas and Aguilés Maleno (mentioned in the preceding paragraph), who were being sought. The trade union officials arrested or wanted by the police had been accused of association with malefactors and subversion. According to the WFTU, these measures were due to the fact that the CGT was constantly active in the defence of the workers' aspirations, democratic rights and the sovereignty and independence of the nation, which were being infringed by the multinational corporations Gulf and Western, Falconbridge, Alcoa Exploration Company, Compañía de Teléfonos, etc. It was alleged that the purpose of keeping the CGT leaders in prison was to make it impossible for the organisation in question to act as champion of the workers' rights and aspirations. The WFTU later stated that Francisco Antonio Santos and Julio de Peña had been held in custody for 201 days.
  28. 28 The complainants also referred to the arrest of officials of the National Union of Telephone Workers, namely Juan Vargas, General Secretary, and Ricardo Borges, Union Secretary for the Northern Region. When the workers attempted to form picket lines to protest against the arrest of the General Secretary, the Company had called the police and threatened to dismiss the protesters. According to the CGT and the SNTT, Juan Vargas had been kept in prison for four months and had then been released on bail.
  29. 29 The WCL referred to the arrest of trade union leaders in the agricultural sector, including 17 peasant militants belonging to the Dominican Federation of Christian Peasants' Leagues (affiliated to the Autonomous Confederation of Christian Trade Unions) and the Organising Secretary of the Union of Employees of the Central Azucarera Caterey (affiliated to the same Confederation).
  30. 30 Certain trade union leaders had been prosecuted. The WFTU mentioned the cases of Juan Angel Santos Peña, Organising Secretary of the Sack and Rope Factory Employees' Union and Organising Secretary of the Federation for the National District of the Foupsa-Cesitrado, and José Leonardo Henriquez, a CGT union militant at the Lasser Battery Factory. According to the WFTU the former had been in prison since January 1974, even though he had been found not guilty by the court of first instance. The latter had been arrested in January 1972 and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on a false charge of having killed a policeman. In December 1977 the CGT announced that the Supreme Court had ordered the release of José Leonardo Henriquez.
  31. 31 Other trade union leaders had been expelled from the country- Vladimir Blanco and Fernando de la Rosa, both officials of the SNTT and the Foupsa-Cesitrado Confederation, expelled respectively in February and July 1972; Carlos Tomás Fernández, General Secretary of the Federation for the National District of the Foupsa-Cesitrado Confederation and of the Sack and Rope Factory Employees' Union, expelled in August 1972; Efrain Sanchez Soriano, Secretary of the Federation for the National District of the Foupsa Cesitrado Confederation and General Secretary of the Santo Domingo Municipal Workers' Union, expelled in March 1970.
  32. 32 The Government had also prevented José Cristóbal Durán, General Secretary of the National Food and Drink Industries Federation, from entering the country on his return from an international trade union conference held in Budapest in 1974.
  33. 33 In a communication sent in February 1976, the Government stated that it had not taken legal action against any trade union leader for his union activities and that, if any official had been deprived of his freedom, it was for breaches of laws in respect of public order or for common-law offences.
  34. 34 The Government also stated in February 1976 that the three CGT officials arrested in June 1975 had been free for over two months.
• (iii) Dismissal of trade unionists
  35. 35 The complaints received referred- to a large number of dismissals of trade union leaders, activists and members. Many undertakings were said to be involved, a number of which were mentioned specifically by the complainants, including:
      • - the firm of Dulcera Dominicana: systematic sacking of 83 union leaders, activists and members and of pregnant women, on account of their union activities;
      • - the firm of Industrias Dominicanas and Company: dismissal of 12 union leaders and active members;
      • - the firm of Los Navarros and company: dismissal of 20 union leaders and militants;
      • - the firm of Ray-O-Vac Dominicana SA: dismissal of 7 union leaders and militants;
      • - the Dominican Telephone Company (Codetel): dismissal of 5 SNTT officials in 1975 and about 80 leaders and members of that union in the course of 1977;
      • - the firm of Barcelo and Company: dismissal of 11 union leaders and 46 workers between 7 March and 4 May 1977;
      • - the firm of Productos de Calcio C. por A. (Cal Pomier): dismissal in May 1977 of the founder members of a union which was being set up;
      • - the firms of Operaciones Kontiki, Fábrica Augusto Espaillat, Successors of Santiago de Caballeros, Constructora Dolarca, Falconbridge, Ingenio Monteblanco, Ingenio Quisqueya, Gulf and Western Division Central Romana.
  36. 36 According to the complainants most of these dismissals were purely on account of trade union activities. For instance, the purpose underlying the dismissals at the firm of Dulcera Dominicana was alleged to be the dismantling of the organisation founded by the firm's employees. In the case of the Dominican Telephone Company, the Organising Secretary of the SNTT was said to have been dismissed for having made use of the facilities made available to trade union officials under the collective agreement in operation in this undertaking. According to the SNTT, the company had set itself the target of dismissing 10 per cent of its employees so as to neutralise their union and prevent negotiations on the collective agreement.
  37. 37 In the case of Barcelo and Company, as a result of pressure being brought to bear by the workers and by public opinion, the company had indicated its intention to re-employ the persons concerned, but only on condition that new work contracts were drawn up, that the collective agreement currently in force was not applied and that the union ceased functioning; the Government was said to have merely ratified the dismissals and accepted the conditions stated by the management.
  38. 38 The WFTU, for its part, alleged that on 6 September 1975 the Chief of Police of the Dominican Republic had sent out a circular to sugar refinery managers requesting them not to allow CGT militants to work in their sugar plants.
  39. 39 The Government forwarded comments with regard to some of the allegations made concerning the dismissal of trade unionists. According to the Government, it was untrue that the purpose of the dismissals at Dulcera Dominicana had been to break up the union, and when the enterprise had ended the contract of a worker, it had done so strictly in accordance with the law.
  40. 40 Still according to the Government, Barcelo and Company had invoked section 69 of the Labour Code to dismiss several trade union leaders and workers (under the terms of this section, either of the parties may terminate a contract of employment for an indefinite period if he finds it convenient, without giving any reason, even during the suspension of the contract). The Secretariat of State for Labour had strongly condemned this action, which was a breach of industrial peace, and had brought pressure to bear on the undertaking to persuade it not to make unreasonable use of the provision in question and to re-employ the persons dismissed. The Government pointed out that it did not have the power to force employers to reinstate dismissed workers and trade union leaders.
  41. 41 The Government also stated that it had sent labour inspectors to investigate complaints by trade unionists against Productos de Calcio C. por A. (Cal Pomier) and Codetel; it had also written to the management of these undertakings in the strongest terms asking them to put a stop to the dismissal and pressurising of trade unionists, since the Government was committed, to ensuring that freedom of association was fully respected. According to the Government, certain employer sectors feared the infiltration and influence of trade union leaders who obeyed the orders of political parties which had been banned because they attacked the Constitutional principles of the State.
• (iv) Dismantling of trade union organisations
  42. 42 The complainants claimed that the authorities or the employers had engaged in attempts to dismantle trade union organisations, for instance by withdrawing an organisation's legal personality, setting up a parallel union or destroying unions completely.
  43. 43 The CGT mentioned in this connection the cancellation in 1974 of the legal personality of the Single Union of Workers of Central Romana Corporations and Central Romana Bys Productos (subsidiaries of the multinational enterprise Gulf and Western). In the Codetel, a ploy was said to have been devised to make the SNTT lose its legal representativity by classifying certain categories of personnel as "public servants" and thereby obliging them to leave the union.
  44. 44 The CGT alleged that the Government, through its officials, had set up a parallel union in Puerto de Andrés at Boca Chica with this end in view, persons ignorant of dock work were said to have been recruited so that they could set up a union with the aim of preventing the members of the Light and Heavy Cargo Stevedores' Union of Puerto de Andrés from carrying out their duties as employees and exercising their trade union rights. Persons awaiting trial on charges of misuse of trade union funds had been elected as leaders of this parallel union. In addition a racket had been introduced for the sale of trade union membership at 50 pesos and more per head, within the context of a recruitment plan, so that the parallel union could gain the upper hand.
  45. 45 The complainants also mentioned the names of 20 or so trade unions, covering many branches of activity, which were said to have been annihilated. The firm of Rosario Rosaurce Dominicana (gold and silver mines sector) was alleged to have prevented its employees from setting up an independent union. In the foreign banking sector, it was not permitted even to speak of trade unions.
  46. 46 With regard to the alleged destruction of certain unions, the Government claimed that most of these organisations were still in existence, but that their leaders, who had been influenced by extremists, had been expelled by decision of the union members.
• (v) Intervention by the public authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions
  • Right of assembly
    47. 47 The WFTU and the CGT referred to the adoption in 1974 by the Secretariat of State for Labour of Administrative Resolution No. 13/74, according to which general assemblies organised with a view to setting up a trade union, electing its executive Committee, amending its statutes or affiliating with a federation or Confederation had to be certified by an inspector from the Labour Department. According to the complainants, this entailed the presence of officials at assemblies and rendered the validity of the decisions adopted subject to the appreciation of the authorities. According to the WFTU, the Supreme Court had ruled this resolution to be illegal, but the authorities continued to apply it.
    48. 48 The Government claimed that Resolution No. 13/74 did not influence the freedom of the workers to make their own decisions. Trade unions acquired legal personality upon registration with the Secretariat of State for Labour. An earlier resolution along these lines had been repealed and this had given rise to a series of developments incompatible with the requirements for the Constitution of a trade union, the election of its leaders, etc.: false lists of signatures, lack of a quorum, etc. Trade union leaders had objected to handing over their duties to the new officers or had refused to do so, alleging ballot rigging, etc. The Government continued that the Secretariat of State could not grant recognition or allow the registration of a trade union merely on the strength of its own assertions. The presence of a labour inspector as an observer was, in its opinion, the best way of avoiding often violent conflicts between union leaders and of assessing the situation correctly when the time came to register the union.
  • Election of trade union officials
    49. 49 Several complainants claimed that the Government had attempted to impose an executive Committee on the Stevedores' Union (POASI) by force. The Secretariat of State for Labour was alleged to have organised rigged elections on 27 March 1973 in which only 163 of a total of 1,348 active members had taken part. These elections had been held at a time when the country was going through a political crisis because of the landing of guerrillas at Playas Caracoles, and the Government was said to have taken advantage of the confusion created to commit these violations of trade union rights. According to the complainants, the leaders elected were from outside the union and were in the service of the Government. The elections had been challenged by a majority of the union's members (766 signatures), but the Secretariat of State for Labour had accepted them as legal and valid. The union had organised new elections on 25 July 1973 that were genuinely democratic, despite the fact that its premises were occupied by military forces who prevented trade union duties from being carried out freely. A new executive Committee, headed by Marcelino Vásquez, was elected with a majority of 899 votes, 9 votes being null and void. These elections were not accepted by the Secretariat of State for Labour, said by the complainants to be biased towards the employers, and the will of the majority continued to be ignored. Later, on 16 September 1973, the police forced the trade unionists to leave their premises and a general secretary was imposed on the union.
    50. 50 The CGT, for its part, complained of the contempt shown by the Government for the decision of the Supreme Court which had declared, in accordance with the spirit of Convention No. 87 and the private nature of trade unions, that the determination by the Government, to suit its own convenience, of who should or should not be the leaders of the POASI was illegal, and an abuse of power.
    51. 51 Subsequently a group of trade unionists calling themselves "the majority group" of the POASI communicated the text of a request addressed on 23 November 1975 to the Secretary of State for Labour calling for the organisation of elections within the union in accordance with the union statutes and the Labour Code.
    52. 52 Other undertakings were also alleged to have been involved in manoeuvres to oust the existing trade union leadership. For instance, the firm of Falconbridge Dominicana was said to have put a stop to the activities of four union executive Committees - with the assistance of the police - in the space of three years. In the firm of Dulcera Dominicana, the union was said to have been replaced by foremen and representatives of the management chosen by the firm with the complicity of representatives of the Government.
    53. 53 The Government stated, with regard to the POASI, that this union had convened an ordinary general assembly, in accordance with its statutes, to elect its executive Committee. These elections had taken place on 27 March 1973 under the supervision of officials of the Labour Department, and there had been no incident of any kind. The officials reported that the ballot had taken place quite normally and that the list headed by Domingo Suero had been elected. The Government added that it had never intervened and would never intervene in the internal affairs of a union and that it had never impeded trade union activities. As concerns the firm of Dulcera Dominicana, the Government stated that the union of that enterprise was conducting its work normally, in accordance with the law.
    54. 54 In a more recent communication sent in January 1978, the Government stated that on 31 October 1977 the POASI had held elections which were entirely in order and the results of which had been accepted by all the parties concerned. The Government stressed the efforts made by the Secretariat of State for Labour to secure the holding of these elections and to overcome, through frank and open dialogue, all the obstacles which were preventing these elections from being held.
  • Trade union funds
    55. 55 According to the complainants, the POASI's funds were seized and used, in defiance of the union's statutes, by the General Directorate of Customs and Ports and the Stevedores' Directorate, in collusion with the false leaders of the union.
    56. 56 The Government has not provided any specific observations on this point.
  • (vi) Occupation of trade union premises
    57. 57 Several of the complainants stated that the headquarters of trade union organisations had been raided and occupied by the police, often several times. The headquarters of the POASI were ransacked in 1971. They were occupied again in September 1973 following the executive Committee elections. The lawful leaders of the union were thus prevented from entering the premises, as a result of which they could not sign on for work at the docks. In July 1976 the WFTU claimed that the POASI premises were still occupied by the police. A communication received in April 1978 from the POASI again mentioned the occupation of its headquarters by the national police.
    58. 58 The UNACHOSIN headquarters were also ransacked by the police in 1971. The premises of other organisations were also taken over by the police. These included the unions of employees of the undertakings Textil Las Minas, Fasaco, Cementera, Minas de Falconbridge, etc. The CGT premises were also occupied by the police several times, as were the headquarters of federations and unions affiliated to it.
    59. 59 In one of its replies the Government referred to the ransacking in 1971 of the headquarters of the POASI and the UNACHOSIN, stating that these unions could sue for damages in the courts it added that the UNACHOSIN's premises had been handed over to the executive Committee of that union a few days after these incidents and that both the POASI and the UNACHOSIN were carrying on their activities normally.
  • (vii) Interference with the right to strike
    60. 60 According to the CGT, infringements of the right to strike had been committed by the firm of Dulcera Dominicana. It had called in the national police to obstruct by repressive means the exercise by the workers of the undertaking of their legal right to take strike action, to which they had been forced to resort. Furthermore, although the law allowed judges a time limit of five days to decide whether or not a strike was legal, 263 days had elapsed without the judges of the Santo Domingo Court of Appeal, acting as a labour court, giving their verdict in respect of this strike.
    61. 61 The Government has not provided any specific observations on this point.
  • (viii) Trade union rights of teachers
    62. 62 The World Federation of Teachers' Unions alleged that, in spite of the ratification of Convention No. 87, government authorities denied teachers the right to join trade unions without prior authorisation; they did not officially recognise the Dominican Teachers' Association, refused to negotiate working conditions with it and granted it no facilities for exercising its trade union rights.
    63. 63 The Government has not provided any observations on this allegation.
  • (ix) Trade union rights of agricultural workers
    64. 64 The CGT claimed that the Government was preventing the free organisation of agricultural workers and peasants even though the trade union rights of such workers were recognised by Regulations No. 76-76 of 6 October 1951 for the administration of the Labour Code. The CGT also referred to persecution said to have been suffered by peasants' leaders, and in particular to the death of several of these leaders.
    65. 65 The Government has not provided any observations with respect to the recognition of the right to organise of agricultural workers.
    66. 66 In more general terms, the Government stated in several of its communications that Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were fully respected in the Dominican Republic and that workers were free to establish organisations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever and without previous authorisation and to elect their representatives in accordance with their rules, without government interference. Trade unions were merely required to comply with the provisions of Book 5 of the Labour Code (concerning trade unions) and with the administrative provisions contained in Resolutions Nos. 8/64 (concerning the registration of trade unions), 15/64 (concerning the establishment of Confederations) and 37/64 (concerning the certification of certain general assemblies by a labour inspector).

D. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 67. The Committee must first of all deplore the fact that, notwithstanding the insistent and repeated requests addressed to the Government at the highest level, the Government has failed to reply to the proposal made by the Committee and the Governing Body that recourse be had to direct contacts. In view of the importance and seriousness of the matters raised in the complaints and the inadequacy of the information at its disposal, the Committee remains convinced that a visit to the Dominican Republic by a representative of the Director-General would have afforded an opportunity to gain a greater insight into the trade union situation and give fruitful consideration to possible solutions to the problems involved.
2. 68. Before taking up each of the matters raised by the complainants, the Committee wishes to emphasise the importance of the cases under consideration, which raise serious issues pertaining to freedom of association and human rights in relation to trade union rights. In this connection the Committee expresses its deep concern at the acuteness and diversity of the problems faced by a substantial part of the Dominican trade union movement in a wide variety of branches of activity.
3. 69. The Committee notes in particular that, according to the allegations, certain trade union organisations, in many cases of nation-wide importance, have for many years been having great difficulty in carrying on their activities owing to the multiple obstacles that have been put in their path: arrest and dismissal of their leaders, occupation of their premises, interference in their internal affairs. Such an atmosphere cannot be conducive to the development of a truly free and independent trade union movement, nor to the promotion of normal industrial relations. The Committee wishes to emphasise before proceeding any further that, as stated in the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1970, the absence of civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights, and the rights conferred upon workers' and employers' organisations must be based on respect for those civil liberties.
4. 70. The allegations refer to a considerable number of murders of officials of workers' organisations, especially in the agricultural sector, committed in most cases by employers or overseers. In the absence of any detailed information on these cases from the Government, the Committee feels bound to observe that the Government has not established that these deaths occurred for reasons unconnected with the status or activities of the officials in question. The Committee considers that, in any event, the circumstances of these cases should have prompted the authorities to take effective steps to establish the facts, punish the culprits and restore the situation to normal, this being an essential prerequisite for the free exercise of trade union rights.
5. 71. Many of the complaints mention the arrest and detention of officials of various trade union organisations. Contradictory explanations as to the reasons for these measures have been given by the complainants and by the Government. According to the former they were due to trade union activities, while the latter has claimed in general terms that the officials in question were arrested for breaches of laws in respect of public order or for common-law offences.
6. 72. Be this as it may, the Committee must observe that the Government has not supplied detailed information as to the acts of which the persons arrested were accused, thus preventing the Committee from examining the allegations with all the facts before it. The Committee considers that the onus was on the Government to show that the measures it had taken were not prompted by the trade union activities of the persons concerned.
7. 73. While most of the trade unionists mentioned in the complaints appear to have now recovered their freedom, it has none the less been clearly established that some of them were kept in custody for relatively lengthy periods of time, in some cases at repeated intervals. It is impossible to determine from the Government's replies whether the persons concerned were brought before the courts. Only in a few cases does it appear from the information supplied by the complainants that legal proceedings were initiated against the trade union officials concerned. One of them was moreover kept in prison even though he had been found not guilty by a court of first instance.
8. 74. The Committee must recall in this connection that it is one of the fundamental rights of the individual that a detained person should be brought without delay before the appropriate judge, this right being recognised in such instruments as the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. In the case of persons engaged in trade union activities, this is one of the civil liberties which should be ensured by the authorities in order to guarantee the full effectiveness of the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee further wishes to point out that the detention by the authorities of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds for prosecution are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions on trade union rights, and governments should take steps to ensure that the authorities concerned have instructions appropriate to eliminate the danger of detention for trade union activities.
9. 75. According to the complainants, the authorities have also ordered the expulsion from the country of certain trade union officials. One of them was refused entry into the Dominican Republic on his return from an international trade union conference. In the Committee's opinion, a measure exiling trade unionists, which is in violation of human rights, is of particular gravity since it deprives the persons concerned of the possibility of working in their country and of contacts with their families. It is also in violation of freedom of association in that it undermines the trade union organisations which are thereby deprived of their leaders.
10. 76. According to the information supplied by the complainants, many trade union officials and members have been dismissed from their jobs in a large number of undertakings covering a wide range of activities. In most of these cases it has been alleged that the sole ground for the action in question was the trade union activities of the persons concerned. In some cases the underlying intention was stated to be the dismantling of trade unions, though this has been denied by the Government. The Government has however admitted that some undertakings engage in practices hardly conducive to the development of sound industrial relations which it cannot combat effectively under the legislation in force.
11. 77. The Committee considers that no person should be discriminated against on account of his trade union membership or activities, and that governments should take measures to ensure that workers are protected against acts, including dismissal, which are likely to provoke or have as their object anti-union discrimination in respect of employment. Legislation enabling employers in practice - on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal - to get rid of any worker, even if the true reason is his trade union membership or activities, does not give sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination.
12. 78. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials, because, in order to carry out their trade union functions in full independence, they must have the assurance that they will not be victimised by virtue of their trade union office. Such an assurance is also necessary to ensure that effect is given to the principle that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom .5
13. 79. A large number of trade union organisations appear to have been dismantled over the past few years, either through the withdrawal of their legal personality or through the setting up of parallel unions or through their destruction by employers. In answer to these allegations the Government has merely stated that the great majority of the organisations in question are still in existence but their leaders have been removed from office by decision of their members. The Committee does not have sufficient information to enable it to express an opinion on these matters in full knowledge of the facts. In particular, it has not been specified whether the legal personality of the trade union mentioned by the complainants was withdrawn by order of the administrative authorities or as a result of court proceedings. The Committee notes, however, that under the terms of section 356 of the Labour Code, the registration of a trade union may be cancelled by a decision of the courts if the trade union pursues activities not connected with its lawful objectives.
14. 80. As concerns the setting up of parallel unions and the destruction of trade unions by employers, the Committee wishes to recall that under the terms of Article 2 of Convention No. 98, ratified by the Dominican Republic, workers' and employers' organisations must enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration. Article 2 specifies that acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers or employers' organisations, or to support workers' organisations by financial or other means with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers' organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of interference.
15. 81. The allegations of interference by public authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions are mainly concerned with the right of assembly, the right to elect officials in full freedom and trade union funds. The Committee considers that freedom of assembly for trade union purposes constitutes one of the fundamental elements of trade union rights, and that the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. The obligation to accept the presence of a representative of the authorities at general assemblies constitutes a restriction upon the free activity of trade unions.
16. 82. With regard to trade union elections, the complainants stated that rigged elections had been held in the POASI union and that the Supreme Court had ruled them to be illegal. According to more recent information supplied by the Government, properly conducted elections were subsequently held in this union. In this connection the Committee wishes once again to emphasise the importance it attaches to the principle that workers and their organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
17. 83. The POASI is also alleged by the complainants to have had its assets confiscated. According to the Government these allegations are false. In view of the contradictory nature of these statements, the Committee can only recall the importance of the principle that trade union funds should be adequately protected.
18. 84. It appears from the allegations made that the headquarters of certain trade union organisations have been occupied by the police, in some cases several times. The latest intervention of this kind - involving the POASI - seems to have been quite recent. In this connection the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that, in the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, the International Labour Conference, expressed the view that the right to protection of the property of trade union organisations was one of the civil liberties which were essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. While trade unions cannot claim immunity from a search of their premises, such a search should only be made following the issue of a warrant by the ordinary judicial authority after that authority has been satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for supposing that evidence exists on the said premises material to a prosecution for an offence under the ordinary law and provided that such search is restricted to the purposes in respect of which the warrant was issued.
19. 85. With regard to the allegations relating to interference with the right to strike, the Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests. The Committee points out in this connection that on several occasions the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has made comments with respect to sections 368 to 379 of the Labour Code, which allow all cases of collective labour disputes to be referred to arbitration, culminating in a binding award, which might severely restrict the right to strike and thus infringe the right of trade unions to organise their activities. As concerns the calling in of the police to obstruct, according to the complainants, the exercise of the right to strike, the Committee considers that intervention by security forces in the event of strikes should be limited to the maintenance of public order.
20. 86. As concerns the Government's refusal to recognise the legal existence of the Dominican Teachers' Association, the Committee refers to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations with respect to the position of public servants in the Dominican Republic, who are excluded from the Labour code and thereby deprived of the trade union rights proclaimed by the Code. The Committee recalls that public servants, including teachers, are entitled to enjoy the right to organise, just as other workers are.
21. 87. A number of complaints were partly concerned with the trade union situation in the agricultural sector. This branch of activity does indeed seem to have been particularly affected by extremely serious incidents, sometimes involving the death of trade union officials. In addition, according to the complainants, the Government has prevented agricultural workers from organising themselves freely, even though their trade union rights are recognised by law. The Committee wishes in this connection to emphasise the particular importance the International Labour Conference attached to the trade union rights of rural workers in adopting the Rural Workers' Organisations Convention (No. 141) in 1975. Article 4 of this Convention provides that it shall be an objective of national policy concerning rural development to facilitate the establishment and growth, on a voluntary basis, of strong and independent organisations of rural workers as an effective means of ensuring the participation of rural workers, without discrimination, in economic and social development and in the benefits resulting therefrom.