Interim Report - REPORT_NO291, November 1993

1. 427. The Committee examined this case at its meeting of February 1993 when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body (see 286th Report of the Committee, paras. 729 to 738, approved by the Governing Body at its 255th Session (March 1993)). The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 18 May 1993.
2. 428. The Dominican Republic has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 429. In February 1993, the Committee examined the allegations relating to the dismissal of more than 200 trade union leaders and members in June 1992 from the following enterprises: Industrias del Mufler, Creaciones Exclusivas, Jhin Own, Adoro, Cariflo Manufacturing and Gualmana.
2. 430. As the Government did not present any observations on these allegations, the Committee made the following recommendations (see 286th Report, para. 738):
3. The Committee requests the Government to send detailed information on the allegations of dismissals of trade union leaders and members from Industrias del Mufler and Creaciones Exclusivas, Jhin Own, Adoro, Cariflo Manufacturing and Gualmana, indicating whether they took place in violation of trade union rights.
4. (The complainant organization had alleged anti-union dismissals in the aforementioned enterprises.)
5. B. The Government's reply
6. 431. In its communication of 18 May 1993 the Government states that the alleged dismissals were a consequence of the employers exercising the right to dismiss workers without having to justify these dismissals (desahucio), while paying notice and redundancy compensation. It explains that these dismissals were based on the former Labour Code which established this right, and that such action could be taken at any moment and against any worker, including trade union leaders. It was impossible to take any form of judicial action since the aforementioned Code contained no guarantee of trade union immunity. Finally, the Government reports that the new Labour Code prohibits desahucio and declares invalid any such dismissals of trade union organizers and leaders.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 432. The Committee observes that the allegations in question refer to the dismissal of trade union leaders and members (more than 200, according to the complainant organization) of various enterprises. The Committee takes note of the Government's comment that the legal basis of the dismissal of the trade union leaders and members was the former Labour Code which allowed employers to dismiss workers if they paid the indemnities provided for by law. Similarly, the Committee notes with interest that the new Labour Code recognizes trade union immunity but that it is not possible to institute legal proceedings in this case since the new legislation cannot be applied retroactively.
2. 433. The Committee observes that although the Government has not referred to the real reasons for the dismissal of the trade union members mentioned by the complainant, the allegations date from June 1992 and were worded in very general terms. In particular, no indication was given in the allegations of the names of those dismissed nor of the circumstances surrounding the dismissals (see 286th Report, para. 736). In these conditions, the Committee requests the complainant organization to furnish such information.