Interim Report - REPORT_NO211, November 1981

1. 605. The complaint by the Sole Confederation of Costa Rican Workers (CTC) is contained in a communication dated 23 June 1981. The Government, for its part, supplied its observations in a letter dated 5 August 1981.
2. 606. 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. 607. In its communication of 23 June 1981, the CTC, an organisation which it states is affiliated to the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT), alleges that the Tempisque Sugar Works (Central Azucarera de Tempisque S.A.), where a union was formed for the protection of workers' rights, the Tempisque Sugar Workers' Trade Union (UTRACAT), affiliated in turn to the CTC, has repeatedly persecuted a number of the workers through penalties and dismissals.
2. 608. For example, the complainant explains, in October 1980 the UTRACAT trade union leader, Claudio Gamboa Valverde, was dismissed without grounds because he was a member of the union's executive Committee. Although the Minister of Labour was asked to intervene in his favour, the complainant states that no action has yet been taken.
3. 609. It also states that in May 1981 the enterprise in question, taking advantage of the fact that harvesting was over, dismissed about 75 workers with permanent jobs because they belonged to the UTRACAT.
4. 610. The complainant further alleges that in May 1981 the enterprise dismissed the trade union leader, Santos Gómez Hernández, and, in June 1981, Fernández Giménez, the union's secretary for training.
5. 611. Attached to the complainant's communication is a letter addressed by it on 22 June 1981 to the Minister of Labour, requesting the latter's intervention for obtaining the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed. The complainant explains that Mr. Santos Gómez Hernández, before belonging to the UTRACAT's executive Committee, had been chairman of the permanent works Committee, at which time he had encountered no difficulties. When he became a union member, the illegal persecutions by the enterprise commenced, and on several occasions it refused to draw up and enforce an internal works rule. Mr. Gómez was then dismissed on d false accusation of drunkenness.
6. 612. The complainant states that the dismissal of the secretary for training, Mr. Fernández Giménez, was inconsistent in that he was dismissed on grounds of "reorganisation" whereas his own supervisors had, at the end of the harvest, stated that "in view of his output, he could keep his job and would not be dismissed during the reorganisation that was to take place". One month later, nevertheless, he was dismissed on grounds of reorganisation. The complainant states that the true reasons for his dismissal were the following. A group of peasants had asked Mr. Fernández Giménez for the union's help because their boss, Mr. Hernández, was obliging each team of 12 workers to spray 80 bags of fertilizer which, in the climatic conditions in which the work is performed, constitutes unfair and inhumane conditions of work. Mr. Hernández, having learned the name of the person making claims on their behalf, namely Mr. Alfonso Hernández Giménez, had him dismissed.

B. The Government's reply

1. 613. In his reply of 5 August 1981, the Minister of Labour states that, on receipt of the complaint, his ministerial department requested the enterprise to state the reasons why it had terminated the contracts of Claudio Gamboa Valverde, Santos Gómez Hernández and Alfonso Fernández Giménez. According to the Government, it could not be concluded from the reports supplied that the dismissals were due to anti-union discrimination; however, the Minister continues, he ordered an inquiry himself and sent a labour inspector to verify the facts and instructed him to draw up an exhaustive report as quickly as possible, which was known to the complainants.
2. 614. As regards the allegation that in May 1981 the enterprise, taking advantage of the fact that the harvest was over, terminated the contracts of 75 workers for union membership, the Minister of Labour states that an inquiry has been carried on his instructions. The inquiry shows that at the time when the enterprise needed the maximum number of workers for harvesting, the total workforce amounted to 1,172 workers, 296 of whom belonged to the UTRACAT. At the end of the harvest, the total dropped to l,052, 291 of whom belonged to the union. Now that the temporary work is over, the total number of employees is 785, 222 of whom belong to the UTRACAT. This shows that the enterprise terminated the temporary contracts of a larger number of non-union workers than of workers actually belonging to the union. According to the Government, therefore, there has been no anti-union discrimination.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 615. The Committee notes that the present case relates primarily to alleged dismissals of trade union militants and leaders. More precisely, according to the complainant, the dismissals took place in October 1980 in the case of Mr. Gamboa Valverde and in May and June 1981, respectively, in the cases of Mr. Gómez Hernández and Mr. Fernández Giménez, leaders of the UTRACAT, a trade union affiliated to the complainant organisation. The complainant also alleges that approximately 75 permanent workers were dismissed at the end of the harvest in May 1981 because of their membership of that union.
2. 616. When considering allegations of this nature, the Committee usually draws the attention of governments to one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association, namely that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of antiunion discrimination in respect of their employment, including dismissal. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because in order to perform their trade union duties in full independence they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions.
3. 617. As regards the allegation relating to the dismissal of three trade union leaders mentioned by the complainant, the Committee notes that the Government has ordered an inquiry in these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of the inquiry and expresses the hope that, if it is found that the trade union leaders dismissed have not committed any serious offence, the Government will endeavour to obtain their reinstatement.
4. 618. Concerning the alleged dismissal of approximately 75 permanent workers, the Committee notes that the opinion of the complainant and that of the Government on the matter conflict. In the opinion of the complainant, the workers, though permanent, were dismissed because of their membership of the UTRACAT, whereas in the opinion of the Government, following the inquiry it made, the enterprise terminated the temporary contracts of more non-union workers than union workers.
5. 619. The Committee observes that the Government, though it has carried out an inquiry, has not stated whether permanent workers belonging to the UTRACAT were dismissed or, if they were, for what reason. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government for precise information on this aspect of the case.