Definitive Report - REPORT_NO233, March 1984

1. 97. The Regional Federation of Trade Unions of Agricultural, Agro-industrial and Viticultural Workers and Common Land Holders "El Despertar del Norte" presented its complaint in a communication which the ILO received on 24 June 1983. The Government replied in a communication dated 18 January 1984.
2. 98. Chile has ratified neither 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. 99. The complainant claims that on 15 May 1983 Luis Araya Cisternas, leader of the Regional Federation of Agricultural, Agro-industrial and Viticultural Workers and Common Land Holders "El Despertar del Norte", and the executive committee of the "El Progreso" trade union were attacked without any explanation by the Carabineros of the Punitaquí police station (Province of Limarí) while the members of the union were holding a meeting. According to the complainant, the members of the union were made to kneel down and were interrogated.
2. 100. The complainant states that the purpose of the meeting was to analyse the situation of peasants on the "El Progreso" estate which, save for a part that was reserved for the owner, was turned over to the rural workers after expropriation. The complainant indicates (without stating whether or not he was the owner) that Willy Abuslemen is preventing the peasants from sowing their crops and cutting wood and is harassing them in various ways.
3. 101. A letter from the complainant organisation to the Ministry of the Interior, which was attached by the complainant, states that the alleged events took place as the meeting was ending and that a union leader, Luis Araya, was taken away to the Punitaquí police station where he was interrogated before being released. Along with the executive committee of the "El Progreso" union, Mr. Araya was brought before the Mayor who warned them that in future they would have to ask permission to hold meetings.

B. The Government's reply

1. 102. The Government states that, on 12 May 1983, the Mayor of Punitaqui was instructed to take steps to ensure law and order on the occasion of a political meeting to be held at a place called El Durazno in the Commune of Punitaquí. Two carabineros attached to the Punitaquí police station carried out these instructions.
2. 103. The Government denies categorically the accusations regarding the behavior of the police officials who merely requested Luis Araya, who appeared to be presiding the meeting, to show proper identification and a permit for holding the meeting. According, to the Government, Luis Araya did not hand over any of the documents requested and was therefore taken to the Punitaquí police station where he was released on the same day without any charge against him after verification of his place of residence.
3. 104. Finally, the Government points out that the meeting ended without any further incident after the police officers withdrew and that Hugo Edgardo Lemus Alvarado, Raúl Toro Araya, Daniel Vega Vega y Amador Cortés Cortés, who attended the meeting, all confirmed the correct manner in which the police officers behaved.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 105. The Committee observes that the complainant alleges that several trade union leaders were assaulted by members of the police force during a meeting of members of the "El Progreso" trade union.
   • The complainant further alleges that union members were made to kneel on the ground and were interrogated and that one of the leaders, Luis Araya, was held for interrogation before being released. Finally, the complainant claims that the union leaders were ordered to request permission to hold meetings in the future.
2. 106. With regard to the alleged aggression by the members of the police force, the Committee observes that the Government denies the allegations and states that the police officers merely requested Luis Araya to show them proper identification and a permit for holding the meeting. In support of its statement, the Government refers to the evidence of four participants in the meeting who all testify that the police officers behaved in a correct manner. In these circumstances, and in view of the contradiction between the allegations and the Government's reply, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
3. 107. With regard to the holding of the union leader Luis Araya for interrogation and the alleged warning given to him and to the executive committee of the "El Progreso" union that they must ask permission to hold meetings in the future, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Luis Araya was taken to the Punitaquí police station because he showed neither proper identification nor permission to hold the meeting, which the Government describes as political, when asked to do so by police officers.
4. 108. The Committee wishes to point out that the Government's claim that the meeting was political is unsupported by any evidence. On the other hand, the complainant states that the participants were union leaders or members of the "El Progreso" union and that the purpose of the meeting was to analyse the situation of peasants on the "El Progreso" estate, specifically in connection with certain alleged abuses. Consequently, and since the Government has not explicitly denied these claims of the complainant, the Committee considers that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it was not a trade union meeting.
5. 109. In these circumstances, the Committee must draw the Government's attention to the fact that the right to organise and hold trade union meetings is an essential element of trade union rights, that the exercise of that right should not be subject to prior authorization and that the authorities should refrain from any interference liable to restrict that right. [See, for example, 218th Report, Cases Nos. 1126, 1136 and 1137 (Chile), paragraph 216, and Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 4B), ILC, 69th Session, Geneva, 1983, paragraph 66]. In the light of these principles, and although Luis Araya was released on the day he was taken into custody, the Committee regrets that this trade union leader was deprived of his freedom principally, it appears, for not having requested administrative authorization to hold and chair what., in the Committee's opinion, was a trade union meeting.