Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO371, March 2014

1. 256. The complaint is contained in a communication of the Asociación de Profesores de Segunda Enseñanza (APSE), dated 23 October 2012.
2. 257. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 19 August 2013.
3. 258. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 259. In a communication dated 23 October 2012, the APSE alleges that the Government, in particular the Ministry of Public Education, has refused to undertake dialogue and regular consultations with teachers’ trade union organizations, grouped together in “Teachers in Action”, especially the APSE, and has refused to meet these organizations. The complainant attributes this attitude to its denunciation of assumed irregularities committed by the public education authorities and the call for the Minister’s resignation.
2. 260. Furthermore, the complainant points out that, in accordance with the Act on Associations and its own statutes, the APSE issued invitations to an annual national congress on 8, 9 and 10 August 2012. In this regard, it states that, on 25 June 2012, the public education authorities authorized the participation of the complainant’s members in the 57th National Congress. The members provided proof of their attendance at the event in question to their immediate supervisors, and within the prescribed timeframe, by means of a supporting document issued by the complainant; the APSE states that, for practical purposes, in view of the very large number of participants, it provided proof with the scanned signature of the Secretary-General and the organization’s official seal. As of 1 October 2012, the Department of Human Resources of the Ministry of Public Education objected to the presentation of scanned signatures and began to notify a large number of members who had attended the Congress that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against them, as they had not provided proof of their attendance at the 57th Congress in the form of an original participation certificate.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 261. In its communication of 19 August 2013, the Government rejects the claim that anti-union acts have been committed and states that the APSE is not a trade union, nor is it registered as such or have the functions of a union, but it is rather an association of persons entered in the Register of Associations; the Government therefore requests the Committee to assess whether, within the framework of the proceedings, this association is actually legitimate and has the capacity to present complaints to the Committee.
2. 262. The Government states that at no time has the Ministry of Public Education restricted or limited union rights and also that it has even signed the first collective agreement with the two main trade unions in the education sector, which will benefit more than 70,000 employees.
3. 263. The Government adds that the APSE is part, although not as a trade union, of the analysis and discussion forum known as “Teachers in Action” and it is not certain either that the Ministry in question has an obstructive attitude towards “Teachers in Action” or against the APSE, or that it refused meetings or appointments requested by the APSE; by contrast, it responded to all the communications from this association, in particular to those where “paid leave” is requested so that its members may participate in ordinary general assemblies (the Government attaches the corresponding documents). The Government specifies, however, that officials who attend the assemblies must submit to their supervisors the original proof of attendance provided by the APSE, for which reason a document submitted with the scanned signature does not meet this requirement, the aim of this requirement being to avoid abuses.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 264. The Committee notes that the Government states that the complainant association is not a trade union organization and requests the Committee to examine whether it has the capacity to present complaints.
2. 265. The Committee observes that, although the APSE is not included in the Register of Associations, it does participate in social dialogue forums in the education sector and obtains permission from the authorities for its members to participate in general assemblies.
3. 266. The Committee notes that this case refers to allegations of: (1) the refusal to meet the APSE representatives and to launch a social dialogue, owing to public denunciations by the trade union of significant irregularities on the part of the public education authorities; and (2) the institution of disciplinary proceedings against thousands of members who participated in the trade union congress and who provided proof of their attendance only in the form of a record on which the signature was scanned.
4. 267. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations denying the refusal to meet or to conduct a dialogue with representatives of the APSE and that it submits proof in this regard. The Committee notes that the requirement of proof of participation of members in the APSE congress in the form of original proof of attendance provided by the APSE (whereby a scanned signature is not sufficient) is justified by the Government on the basis that paid leave is granted to such employees and for the purpose of avoiding abuses.
5. 268. As regards the alleged institution of disciplinary proceedings against the APSE members, whose attendance at the annual trade union congress was authorized by the authorities and proven by the complainant with scanned signatures, but not with handwritten signatures (as asserted by the Government), the Committee notes that the Government has not responded to this allegation and that, by contrast, the complainant has enclosed a request by the Administrative Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Education of 24 September 2012, for the institution of disciplinary proceedings against numerous officials identified by name. The Committee requests the Government to respond to these allegations and to keep it informed of any decision taken.