Interim Report - REPORT_NO204, November 1980

1. 361. The complaint is contained in communications from the National Union of Workers in the Construction, Wood and Building Materials industries dated 2 July and 2 August 1980. The Government replied by communication of 2 September 1980.
2. 362. 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 363. In its communication of 2 July 1980 the National Union of Workers in the Construction, Wood and Building Materials Industries alleges that in response to its repeated demands for the application of the collective agreement in force, the undertaking Staves, Barrels and Parquet Inc. (STABAPARI) dismissed 25 workers, including 2 trade union leaders, without respecting the terms of the agreement in certain cases. For this reason, adds the complainant, a strike began on 19 May 1930, which was subsequently declared illegal. Furthermore, says the complainant, the manager of STABAPARI drove his car at a number of workers who were standing at the entrance to the undertaking and later used a firearm. On 7 June 1980, continues the complainant, an agreement was signed between the trade union and the representatives of the Government under which the workers undertook to put an end to the strike and the Government to grant a can be cover the statutory benefits to which the dismissed workers were entitled and the benefits for any workers who had taken part in the strike and who might later be dismissed for this reason. The complainant adds that 60 workers were dismissed on the day following the signature of the agreement and that the workers were later told that they would have to reimburse the loans which they had received in the event that the courts pronounced the dismissals justified.
2. 364. In its communication of 2 August 1980 the complainant organisation states that neither the Government nor the undertaking has kept its promises. The complainant adds that officials of the Ministry of Labour, with the consent of the STABAPARI undertaking, called a meeting in which the union leadership was prevented from taking part in order to induce the workers to abandon their trade union organisation and appoint in its place a "labour relations board" in harmony with the interests of the undertaking.

B. The Government's reply

1. 365. In its communication of 2 September 1980 the Government states that the alleged acts of physical assault of which the complainant accuses the manager of the undertaking are awaiting confirmation by the courts. The Government adds that the Ministry of Labour granted economic aid to the dismissed workers out of its own funds and that, thanks to its intervention, the STABAPARI undertaking paid the sums it owed to the workers for the remaining period of their contract. As for the other statutory benefits (pay in lieu of notice and severance pay), the Government states that since these were granted in the form of loans under the agreement of 7 June 1980 the workers concerned are obliged to reimburse them if the courts consider the dismissals to be justified. The Government has sent information on the initiation of the procedure for the granting of such cans.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 366. As regards the alleged acts of physical assault against workers of which the manager of STABAPARI is accused, the Committee takes note of the Government's statement that proceedings have been brought before the courts.
2. 367. The Committee also notes that the Government has granted the dismissed workers economic assistance and that the undertaking has paid all the sums which it owed to the dismissed workers at the time of dismissal.
3. 368. As regards pay in lieu of notice and severance pay, the Committee observes that the agreement of 7 June 1980, concluded between the Government authorities and the trade union, provides for the granting of a loan for the payment of this compensation. The Committee also observes that according to the said agreement, any workers whose dismissal is held to be justified by the court will have to reimburse the sums received under these headings. Finally, the Committee observes that although it would appear that the Government has initiated the procedure for obtaining the loans, this procedure is not yet completed.
4. 369. As regards the dismissals recorded at the STABAPARI undertaking the Committee notes that 25 of them took place after the repeated demands made by the trade union for the application of the collective agreements and that the remaining 60 took place on the day after the signature of the agreement which put an end to the strike. In this connection the Committee must point out that such a large number of dismissals (the undertaking had 114 workers) on the occasion of labour disputes involves serious risks of abuse and serious threats to freedom of association and may impair the development of labour relations. For this reason the Committee feels that it would be advisable to take measures to review the situation of the dismissed workers as far as possible, particularly any workers who have been dismissed from their posts for reasons connected with their trade union activities.
5. 370. Lastly, the Committee remarks that the Government has so far made no response to the complainant's communication of 2 August 1980 regarding the purported interference of ministry of Labour officials in STABAPARI to induce the workers to abandon their trade union organisation.