Definitive Report - REPORT_NO217, June 1982

1. 274. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Chile in a communication dated 26 November 1981. The Government supplied its observations in a communication of 21 April 1982.
2. 275. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 276. The ICFTU in its complaint refers to of the National Confederation of Trade Unions and Federations of Agricultural, Forest, Native and Agro-Industrial Workers "El Surco".
2. 277. The ICFTU explains that this Confederation was formed on 29 May 1981 in the presence of a sworn individual designated by the Santiago Provincial Labour Inspectorate. Legal personality was conferred upon it on 5 June 1981 under the number 850. It is composed of 30 first-degree trade unions which are situated throughout the Chilean territory.
3. 278. On 2 November 1981, a Sunday, its headquarters which are situated in Santiago, were broken into and searched by uniformed and plainclothes agents in the absence of any trade union leader. After having emptied the premises and taken away the material and property which belonged to the trade union organisation, the agents in question locked up the premises with padlocks and chains.
4. 279. In conclusion, the ICFTU states that this intervention and these dealings on the part of the public authorities impair and restrict the orderly functioning of the affected organisation.

B. The Government's reply

1. 280. In its reply the Government explains that Mr. Julio Huenur Loyola, who is not linked directly or indirectly to the Government, owns a building situated at No. 379 San Diego Street in Santiago which he had let to a lawyer called Mr. Jaime Labarca Vivanco. As the latter had not paid any rent for three months, the landlord decided to visit the building to talk to him. He then discovered that the premises had not been used by the lawyer as had been set out under the terms of the lease, but were unoccupied with the doors open in an obvious state of abandonment except for the propaganda material of the Agricultural Confederation "El Surco". In view of this state of affairs, the landlord requested the police to be present when he re-entered his apartment on 1 November 1981. It was then that propaganda pamphlets were found therein.
2. 281. The Government states that it did not participate in any way in the incident in question and that the police acted at the request of an individual without knowing that the building was the headquarters of a trade union organisation. According to the Government, there was no violation of ownership as it was the owner himself who had requested police assistance.
3. 282. It is up to the tenant, if he considers that he has been wronged, to appeal to the civil courts for damages to compensate the injury be has suffered. The Government finally states that there has been no violation of an organisation's trade union headquarters.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 283. The Committee notes the Government's reply respecting the circumstances surrounding the search of the premises. It nevertheless notes that no reply has been provided concerning the allegation that the material and the property of the trade unions has been removed.
2. 284. In this connection, the Committee wishes to recall that in its Resolution concerning Trade Union Rights and their relation to Civil Liberties, adopted in 1970, the International Labour Conference considered that the right to protection of the property of trade unions constitutes one of the civil liberties essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights.