Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO211, November 1981

1. 305. In a communication dated 11 May 1981, the Coordinadora Nacional Sindical (CNS) presented a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in Chile. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, in a letter dated 17 June 1981, enclosing the text of the CNS's complaint, stated that the allegations made had its full support. The Government, for its part, supplied its observations in a communication dated 24 September 1981.
2. 306. Chile has not ratified 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. Allegations of the complainants

1. 307. The CNS alleges, first of all, that the Government prohibited nine trade union organisations having legal personality from holding a meeting of workers on May Day when these organisations had complied with all of the obligations provided for in the labour legislation, having requested the authorisation of the competent police inspector. However, on 23 April the police authorities had notified the administrator of the premises where the meeting was to be held that any meeting or demonstration was prohibited and consequently that he should refrain from allowing the premises to be used. In addition, the Minister of the Interior had publicly stated that any meeting held on the occasion of May Day, besides that called by the Government itself, would be repressed.
2. 308. This warning, according to the CNS, was carried out, and the workers who had gathered at the doors to the hall where the meeting was to be held were violently dispersed by the police and agents of the National Central Information Agency. The CNS leaders then requested the workers to withdraw peacefully.
3. 309. However, according to the complainant organisation, 141 persons were arrested on May Day in the city of Santiago. In other areas of the country as well (Valparaiso, Concepción, Iquique), meetings called by trade unions were prohibited and 84 persons arrested. At the time of sending the complaint, 15 persons whose names are listed in the communication were still held by the National Central information Agency.
4. 310. On 6 May 1981, the CNS continues, the Minister of the Interior placed under house arrest, in various isolated places in the far south of the country, 12 workers and students who had been held since 1 May. These persons were to remain in those places for three months.
5. 311. Furthermore, the Chairman of the National Federation of Textile Workers, Fernando Bobadilla, was arrested on 1 May by Agents, of the National Central Information Agency when he was returning from the headquarters of the National Association of Public Employees. According to the complainant organisation, he was subjected to psychological torture to make him divulge information about the Coordinadora Nacional Sindical. Mr. Bobadilla subsequently lodged an "appeal for protection" with the Santiago Court of Appeal describing in detail the interrogation to which he had been subjected.
6. 312. The complaint then refers to physical assaults by uniformed police against miners in the El Teniente area at Rancagua, mentioning in particular incidents that occurred on 6, 7, 8 and 9 May during peaceful demonstrations. During one of these, 27 persons were arrested, including 12 miners and 15 women and young persona. As a result of ill-treatment, two workers' arms were broken. Furthermore, on 11 May, when the miners' wives were protesting against the arrests by beating on empty pots, the police broke violently into the buildings, throwing tear-gas bombs, and proceeded to arrest several mothers of families, who were subsequently released
7. 313. Lastly, the CNS mentions the situation of 1,000 Mapuche Indian peasants whose co-operative at Lumaco has been taken over by the Government. The peasants are in jeopardy of losing their land owing to the mismanagement of government officials. Their leaders have been thrown into jail after denouncing the abuses committed against the indigenous population. The CNS adds that a co-operative trade union has been organised by these peasants.

B. The Government's reply

1. 314. Concerning the May Day celebrations, the Government denies that there was any general prohibition of meetings it states that all organisations were able to meet freely in their premises to examine their problems, and that this occurred throughout the country. The meeting to which the complaint refers was a public meeting in a theatre, outside the trade union headquarters, and without prior authorisation by the police. The Government recalls that, since the country is in a state of emergency, such an authorisation must be obtained prior to holding a public meeting.
2. 315. The Government adds that large-scale arrests were not made and that if some persons were arrested, the arrests were made to prevent disturbance of the peace and in no case on account of trade union celebrations held in the organisations' premises of the persons listed by the complainants, the Government was able to find information about seven who are being held in a public prison. These persons are charged with breaking the law on state security and Decree No. 77, to dissolve political parties and prohibit activities for promoting doctrines involving a concept of man and society contrary to the dignity of human beings and the values of freedom and Christianity which are part of the national tradition". These persons were members of a propaganda cell of those political parties. The case against them is now in first instance and the public prosecutor's report is awaited. The accused will be entitled to appeal when the sentence is handed down. It appears therefore to be clear, according to the Government, that the reason for their arrest was not the celebration of May Day or any facts connected with freedom of association. Nor are they being held, as the complainants falsely assert, in secret places.
3. 316. Concerning the measures of house arrest, the Government points out that the president of the Republic has the right to take such measures under the Constitution approved by referendum on 11 September 1980. This presidential right, which is of a transitional nature, is exercised when acts of violence are committed that affect law and order or when the peace is likely to be disturbed. It has been exercised in a limited number of cases against habitual agitators. Moreover, the persons concerned may appeal to the authorities for a review of the case. The Government reaffirms that this exceptional measure has never been used to repress the exercise of trade union rights.
4. 317. Regarding the arrest of Mr. Fernando Bobadilla, the Government points out that under article 21 of the Constitution any person arrested in violation of existing legislation or illegally threatened in his right to personal freedom and individual safety may appeal to the courts to adopt measures to re-establish the exercise of his rights and ensure his protection. This is what has happened in the case in question, Mr. Bobadilla having lodged an appeal for protection with the Santiago Court of Appeal. On this point, the Government concludes that Mr. Bobadilla has been released.
5. 318. The action taken by the police in the case of the strike at El Teniente was intended to maintain peace and order which political activists not connected with the mine aimed at disrupting. No worker or trade union leader at the mine was arrested for participating in the legal strike.
6. 319. The allegations relating to the Indian peasants of the Lumaco co-operative, according to the Government, have to do with the financial administration of an agricultural enterprise governed by the general law on co-operatives. The Government adds that the Committee on Freedom of Association is not competent to take a position on the economic management of an enterprise and that no violation of labour legislation was committed. In the Government's opinion, this is a matter that has no relation to freedom of association.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 320. The CNS's complaint relates essentially to events which occurred during the celebration of May Day in 1981. Other allegations relate to incidents that occurred during a strike at the copper mines in the El Teniente area and in an agricultural cooperative of indigenous peasants.
2. 321. The Committee observes that it has had before it for five consecutive years' allegations concerning impediments to the celebration of May Day in Chile. In this connection it must stress, as it has done on several occasions' in conjunction with Case No. 823 relating to Chile, that the holding of public meetings and the voicing of demands of a social and economic nature are traditional forms of trade union action on the occasion of May Day. Trade unions should have the right to organise freely whatever meetings they wish to celebrate May Day, provided public order is respected. In the case in question, an authorisation to hold the meeting had been requested and the trade unions organising the meeting had planned to hold it in closed premises. It does not therefore appear that any particular disturbance of the peace was to be feared.
3. 322. In addition, the incidents which took place on May Day led to measures of detention and house arrest. It emerges from the Government's reply, in particular, that seven persons who, according to the complainants, had been arrested on May Day, are still being held pending trial before the courts. Other persons were placed under house arrest in isolated places, a decision taken outside any judicial procedure. In this connection, the Committee wishes to recall the importance which it attaches to the right of all accused persons to enjoy the benefits of normal judicial procedures. In these circumstances, the Committee must stress, as it has already done in cases relating to Chile, that the persons arrested during a demonstration organised by a trade union - which appears to be the case of the demonstration to which the allegations refer - should be released or, if they are accused of crimes, be judged within a normal period of time by impartial and independent courts. The Committee would like to be kept informed of the results of the court proceedings brought against the seven persons in question.
4. 323. Concerning the arrest of Mr. Fernando Bobadilla, a well-known trade union leader in Chile, the Committee must recall that the arrest of a trade unionist against whom no charge is brought involves restrictions to freedom of association. Governments should adopt measures for issuing appropriate instructions to prevent the danger involved for trade union activities by such arrests. It is also clear that such measures create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities.
5. 324. Concerning the allegations relating to police intervention during the strike at El Teniente, the Committee, while noting the Government's statement that the persons arrested were agitators not connected with the mine, observes that, according to detailed information supplied in the complaints, the police intervened frequently during the dispute and proceeded to arrest miners and the wives of strikers. In this connection, the Committee wishes to stress that in cases of strike movements the authorities should resort to the use of force only in serious situations where law and order is seriously threatened.
6. 325. Lastly, the Committee notes, concerning the allegations relating to the indigenous peasants of the Lumaco co-operative, that in the Government's view this matter has nothing to do with freedom of association. The Committee observes however that the leaders of the peasants who, according to the complainants, were arrested - which the Government has not denied - intervened to defend the peasants' economic interests with the Ministry of Economy and Finance and that they have organised a trade union. Before being arrested, they had therefore acted as workers' representatives. The Committee expresses the hope that a rapid solution will be found in this matter and that no definite action will be taken against the peasant leaders for reasons connected with the performance of their functions as representatives.