REPRESENTATION (article 24) - COSTA RICA - C011, C087, C098, C135 - 1985

Report No. 240 of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 1304 -- Representation made by the Confederation of Costa Rican Workers (CTC), the Authentic Confederation of Democratic Workers (CATD), the Unity Confederation of Workers (CUT), the Costa Rican Confederation of Democratic Workers (CCTD) and the National Confederation of Workers (CNT), under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging the failure by Costa Rica to implement several international labour conventions including Conventions Nos. 11, 87, 98 and 135

Complaint Procedure

1. 65. By a communication dated 16 April 1984, which was received in Geneva on 16 May, the above-mentioned trade union organisations presented a representation to the Office alleging failure by the Government of Costa Rica to implement various Conventions, including the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).
2. 66. The above-mentioned Conventions have been ratified by Costa Rica.
3. 67. The representation was also directed against the International Monetary Fund, which the complainants state acts with the Government in the measures concerned.
4. 68. At its 227th Session (June 1984) the Governing Body (see document GB.227/205), in accordance with the recommendation of its officers, declared the representation presented against Costa Rica receivable, particularly as concerns Conventions Nos. 11, 87, 98 and 135; declared irreceivable the representation against the International Monetary Fund; and referred the aspects of the representation relating to the implementation of Conventions Nos. 11, 87, 98 and 135 to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
5. 69. By letters of 8 October, 22 November and 18 December 1984, the Government sent its observations on the allegations presented by the complainant organisations. The complainant organisations, for their part, supplied a series of documents in support of their allegations, which were received on 25 October 1984 and communicated to the Government on 5 November 1984.
6. A. The complainant's allegations
7. 70. The complainants allege that, as a consequence of negotiations and undertakings between the Government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) a series of measures have been taken which violate the ILO Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining ratified by Costa Rica (among other documents, the complainants sent copy of a letter of intent sent by the Government to the IMF, which to judge from its contents, was written in 1984). In particular, the complainants refer to the following facts and measures:
8. - a wage freeze as from January 1984, and a wage increase in the private sector of only 5 per cent. The latter increase neither covered the loss in the workers' purchasing power when compared to 1983, nor did it allow them to recover their purchasing power in the face of the inflation rate escalation since January 1984;
9. - the presentation by the Government to the Legislative Assembly of a Bill to create the Collective Bargaining Commission for the Public Sector. The complainants take exception to the composition of this Commission and to its jurisdiction as regards the discussion or solution of disputes, as well as to the fact that the Bill removes labour disputes from the jurisdiction of the labour courts; under the Bill they will be heard under administrative litigious procedure, with all the disadvantages that this entails for the workers;
10. - presentation by the Government to the Legislative Assembly of a Bill to consolidate the solidarity associations as a movement supported by the employers and parallel to the trade union movement. In particular, the permanent committees established by the Bill would promote the signature of direct settlements replacing any form of negotiation;
11. - a proposal, made by the Government, for the complete reform of the part of the Labour Code concerning collective rights would restrict freedom of association, the right to strike and collective bargaining (the complainants send the text of the reform Bill);
12. - the proposal by the Government to the Legislative Assembly of a Bill for the financial equilibrium of the public sector (Emergency Act) which later became law; this is evidence of failure to respect the established negotiations which were signed and in force with the workers' organisations;
13. - the Government, through the Minister of the Presidency, circulated an official communication to all ministries and public and administrative agencies in which the basic information was set out to permit the creation of blacklists of workers who had demonstrated against the policies adopted at the instigation of the International Monetary Fund (the complainants attach an official circular dated August 1983);
14. - as from October 1980 the Government published directives according to which collective agreements were not to be negotiated and already negotiated agreements were not to be amended, renegotiated or extended without the agreement of the Attorney-General' s Department of the Republic (the complainants attach copies of some directives adopted by the Government Council on 2 October 1980); according to the complainants there has been a sharp decline in the number of collective agreements concluded over the past four or five years;
15. - as part of the anti-union policy pursued by the Government, penal sanctions are applied for the development of activities of trade union organisations and threats to apply them are used as a means of persecuting the trade union leadership. This procedure was initiated against the Association of Employees of the Costa Rican Electricity Board, and is now being pursued against the Trade Union of Medical Science Professionals of the Costa Rican Social Insurance Fund, the Medical Union, the workers and leaders of the Trade Union of the National Bank of Costa Rica, the leaders of the Trade Union of Water and Sewerage Workers, the National Childhood Welfare Society, and also against the leaders of the Costa Rican Christian Peasants' Federation (the complainants attach a judgement of 27 March 1984 sentencing ten leaders of the Trade Union of the National Bank of Costa Rica, in particular for incitement to the collective abandonment of public duty).
16. B. The Government's reply
17. 71. The Government begins by stating that many of the allegations are of a general and abstract nature, and do not cite concrete and specific cases of presumed violations of ILO Conventions. The Government also points out that the complainant organisations did not bring their claims before the courts, although they might have made use of the various judicial means of redress offered by the law, such as a plea for protection of constitutional rights (amparo), an appeal based on unconstitutionality and ordinary litigious administrative proceedings. These judicial means of redress offer the appropriate guarantees, particularly when it is borne in mind that Conventions rank higher than laws in accordance with article 7 of the Political Constitution, and that the courts of justice are competent to deal with disputes arising out of the violation or non-observance of Conventions. After citing a series of constitutional provisions, which in the Government's view coincide with those contained in the ratified ILO Conventions, the Government states that the laws which apply the relevant rights and principles recognised by the Constitution and to which the complaint refers do not violate ILO Conventions; if this were the case, the Government would not be able to ratify such Conventions validly, since this would imply an amendment to the Constitution with each ratification.
18. 72. The Government points out that what the complainants referred to as a "letter of intent" which was sent to the International Monetary Fund is merely a rough draft designed to obtain a "contingency settlement" for one year to enable the stabilisation of the country's economic and fiscal situation.
19. 73. The Government also states that, in order to work towards the restoration of the real wage, the Executive created a sliding wage-scale system by Decree No. 13827-TSS of 19 August 1982, which enabled wages in the public and private sectors to be adjusted in accordance with biannual variations in a basic wage basket; this is the sole wage policy mechanism. This project was accepted and complied with by the trade unions. In January 1984 the time came for the second wage adjustment. A basic adjustment of 450 colones had already been decreed, corresponding to the biannual variation (December 1982-June 1983) in the basic wage basket; during the second half of 1983, however, the consumer price index rose less rapidly, so that during the second half of the year this indicator showed a rise of barely 0.8 per cent, whereas the rise during the first half of the year had been 9.8 per cent. This levelling-off had the effect of raising the basic wage basket by only 31.04 colones during the period, so that there was nothing to warrant a wage adjustment.
20. 74. As for the approval of a 5 per cent wage increase for the private sector as of January 1984, continues the Government, this was granted for the purpose of compensating for the loss in real value of minimum wages during 1981 and 1982, since the 12.6 per cent increase decreed in August 1983 (in accordance with the estimated biannual growth of the basic wage basket) exceeded the increase in the retail price index during the year, which was 10. 7 per cent; this legal measure thus resulted in an increase in purchasing power. Nor can it be affirmed that galloping inflation began in January 1984, since the consumer price index shows a rise of only 7.9 per cent for the first half of that year. Nevertheless, the Government decreed a further 10 per cent adjustment to minimum wages in July 1984, which raise the real minimum wage to a level higher than that of 1980.
21. 75. As for the Bill known as the Act to create the Collective Bargaining Commission for the Public Sector, the Government states that it was shelved, and there are accordingly no prospects that it will be discussed. As regards the Act for the financial equilibrium of the public sector, the Government remarks that it was neither proposed nor approved at the instigation of the IMF, as the complainants affirm, nor does it imply failure to meet the Government's commitments to the trade union organisations.
22. 76. As for the Government's proposal for the complete reform of the part of the Labour Code concerning collective rights, the Government states that this proposal did not aim at restricting the rights of either of the social partners (the employers or the workers), since the tripartite meeting was organised for the purpose of examining a Bill for the complete reform of the current Labour Code and it was presented to the Legislative Assembly in order to hear the views of the parties concerned on the text. At an earlier stage, however, all existing federations, confederations and trade unions of workers, as well as the employers' organisations (known as chambers), were asked to submit proposals only for the reform of the part of the current Labour Code concerning collective rights; they also submitted their criticisms of the Bill. This was done sufficiently in advance to enable the tripartite meeting to be held. The above-mentioned documentation (the Government's proposal, the employers' and workers' proposals, the criticisms of the draft Labour Code presented to the Legislative Assembly) was to serve as a basis for examination by the subcommittees to be set up to deal with different subjects relating to the collective part, and which were to be tripartite; at the end of the examinations and discussions a proposal agreed upon by the parties concerned was to be presented. Lastly, the outcome of the work of the subcommittees was to be collated in a single document for submission to the Legislative Assembly as a Bill for the reform of the National Labour Code prepared in consultation with the parties concerned and approved by them. It is obvious from the foregoing that with these arrangements, with which all concerned were familiar, particularly those who closely followed the tripartite meeting organised and promoted by the Government, the latter's proposal would not be the only one to be examined by the legislative body to the exclusion of all others. Nor did the Government at any time claim to enlist support for it; on the contrary, it wanted a basis for unity between the parties and the discussion with a view to reaching an agreed final decision and a uniform criterion.
23. 77. As regards the Bill to consolidate the solidarity associations and the trade unions' objections to it, the Government states that these objections are being discussed in the plenary of the Legislative Assembly and that they have developed into a debate in which different political ideologies are expressing their points of view, some of which coincide with the objections expressed in the representation. In reality, however, it may be said that the right of association is a right conferred by the Political Constitution, article 25 of which stipulates: "Persons living in the Republic shall have the right of association for lawful purposes. No one may be forced to join any association." This being so, the Bill has nothing to do with any kind of anti-union policy and involves only rights which the State may not deny its citizens.
24. 78. The Government also states that it has no knowledge of any kind of blacklist of workers, and that it would take the necessary disciplinary measures if the complainants produced any evidence of this.
25. 79. As regards the allegation relating to the reduction in the number of collective labour agreements concluded, the Government states that, although it is correct that there has been a falling-off in the conclusion of such legal instruments during the last five years, this has at no time been attributable to the action of the Government or of the administrative authorities. In order to promote the harmonious and orderly development of the trade union movement a Workers' Education Commission has been set up as part of the Ministry of Labour. This is resulting in the training of trade union leaders who, within their respective bodies, may freely choose the established constitutional right to conclude collective labour agreements (article 62 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and sections 54ff. and 361 of the Labour Code). Moreover, the Government has taken various steps to strengthen the safeguarding of freedom of association and with it the right to conclude collective agreements or other kinds of instruments; one of the means by which it is doing this is the amendment to section 54 of the Labour Code, in which the introductory paragraph of subsection 3 reads as follows: "Any collective agreement must include at least all the standards relating to trade union safeguards laid down in the Conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), ratified by our country". Since it is clear that the reduction in the number of collective agreements concluded cannot be attributed to the Government, it might be explained by the fact that the workers themselves have joined in non-trade-union type associations to voluntarily conclude with their employers other legal instruments to regulate labour relations, such as direct settlements which are also permitted by law. The number of such direct settlements has increased, particularly in the Atlantic Zone (Guápiles, Siquirres) in the banana-growing sectors, where conditions were formerly governed by collective labour agreements. The Ministry has not participated in the conclusion of these agreements, confining itself to ratification and receipt of the texts for deposit; some of the texts have had to be rejected by the General Inspectorate of Labour because they have not been in conformity with the law. This, however, was not the work of the Government or of its authorities but of the parties themselves - employers and workers - who voluntarily preferred direct settlements to collective agreements. The only difference between the two types of agreements is that the signatories of the direct settlements are not the trade unions but associations of workers democratically elected by the workers of an undertaking to represent them and negotiate the conditions of the agreement. In any case, collective agreements are continuing to be negotiated, not only in the private sector but also in the public sector, obviously within the legal limitations imposed in each case.
26. 80. The Government also denies having published directives to the effect that collective agreements are not to be negotiated. Parties in the private sector are absolutely free to negotiate and conclude such agreements, provided that they do not violate or restrict the rights recognised by law. In this field legal supervision is exercised essentially for the prevention of the workers and their representatives. In the public sector, with the entry into force in 1978 of the General Public Administration Act, which lays down administrative principles that are still followed by the Attorney-General's Department today, the conclusion of collective agreements was to some extent restricted. Thanks to the action of the labour administration authorities, and despite the provisions of the General Public Administration Act and the position of the Attorney-General's Department, the Government Council published a series of directives to permit the conclusion of collective agreements with the State and its institutions. These directives were approved by the Government Council at its Sessions Nos. 135 of 2 October 1980 and 169 of 21 May 1981, and by the so-called Budgetary Authority at its Session No. 71-82 of 3 March 1982; the directives provide for the extension of the period of validity of collective agreements concluded in state bodies before the enactment of the Public Administration Act (26 April 1979) until such time as a new civil service statute has been promulgated. Thanks to the action of the Government and the policy of the labour authorities, collective agreements continue to be concluded in the public sector, without any restriction other than the need to conform to the law. This has been recognised by the ILO itself. As for the Ministry of Labour, its authorities have given every support to the negotiation of collective labour agreements, providing installations and officials to serve as mediators and conciliators, despite the limited resources available to it. In addition, and specifically in the public sector, it has been enough merely to review agreements, without any formalities other than the approval of the budgetary expenditures by the authorities of the Comptroller-General's Office of the Republic and the Budgetary Authority as required by law; the Ministry ratifies them and receives them for deposit in accordance with the provisions of the law. It must be concluded that at no time has the Government of the Republic engaged in any kind of action to restrict the conclusion of collective labour agreements. On the contrary, and despite the position of the Attorney-General' s Office of the Republic, the Budgetary Authority and the General Directorate of the Civil Service, measures and decisions have been taken to guarantee the right enshrined in the Constitution. The least the Government can do is supervise the legality of agreements as a means of safeguarding the workers' rights.
27. 81. Regarding the alleged application of penal sanctions or threats to apply them for trade union activities, the Government states that the case is being investigated to ascertain whether situations of this kind have indeed arisen in the trade union organisations to which the complainants refer. In general, the Government recalls that article 39 of the Political Constitution stipulates that: "No one shall suffer penalty unless he has committed a crime, quasi-crime or act of negligence for which he is punished under an existing law by a final judgement pronounced by a competent authority after the accused has been given an opportunity of exercising his right of defence and the necessary proof of guilt has been furnished".
28. C. The Committee' s conclusions
29. 82. The Committee notes that the Governing Body, at its 227th Session (June 1984), declared irreceivable the representation against the International Monetary Fund.
30. 83. The Committee notes that in the present complaint the complainants have objected to a series of measures taken by the authorities which they consider to have been adopted as a direct or indirect consequence of negotiations by the Government with the International Monetary Fund or commitments made by it to that body.
31. 84. The Committee has noted the documentation sent by the complainants, and in particular that the letter of intent sent by the Government to the International Monetary Fund - which to judge from its contents was written in 1984 - makes the following remarks in connection with the public sector: "On the expenditure side, the Government has committed itself to a policy of restrictions for 1984 and the following years. The Government has decided on an employment freeze and has delayed certain wage adjustments and the introduction of a new scale of remuneration for the public sector". Further on, the letter adds, "during the remainder of 1984, wage adjustments in the public sector will be maintained within the limit already established. Minimum wages in the private sector will be increased by absolute amounts based on the rise in the cost of the basic basket of goods and services." The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, what the complainants refer to as "a letter of intent" is merely a rough draft of a project sent to the IMF in order to obtain a contingency settlement for one year to enable the stabilisation of the economic and fiscal situation in the country.
32. 85. In general, before dealing in detail with the various questions raised by the complainants, the Committee wishes to recall that all governments are obliged to respect fully the commitments undertaken by ratification of ILO Conventions and that a State cannot use the argument that other commitments or agreements can justify the non-application of ratified Conventions.
33. 86. More specifically, with respect to the alleged wage freeze in the private sector as from January 1985 and the approval of a wage increase of only 5 per cent, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the sliding wage-scale system instituted by Decree No. 13827-TSS of 19 August 1982, which is the sole wage policy mechanism and which enables the wages of the public and private sectors to be adjusted in line with biannual variations in a basic wage basket, was accepted and complied with by the unions. According to the Government, the 5 per cent wage increase in the private sector as of January 1984 was granted for the purpose of compensating for the loss in the real value of minimum wages.
34. 87. Bearing in mind that the Government states in its reply that the sliding wage scale instituted by Decree No. 13827-TSS is the sole mechanism of wage policy, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that, even under a stabilisation policy, the right to regulate conditions of employment, including wages, by means of collective agreements, should be restricted with respect to wage negotiations only under certain conditions; in particular, such restrictions should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards . (See, for example, 233rd Report of the Committee, Cases Nos. 1183 and 1205 (Chile), para. 482, 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), International Labour Conference, 69th Session, 1983, para. 315.) In this respect the Committee wishes to stress that the legislation serving as a basis for restricting wage negotiations dates from August 1982.
35. 88. The Committee also notes the Government's explanations of the reduction in the number of collective labour agreements concluded.
36. 89. As regards the alleged directives of the authorities to the effect that no collective agreements are to be concluded in the public sector, the Committee observes that the complainants refer to directives of the Government Council adopted on 2 October 1980, in which it is explicitly stated that "since the coming into force of the General Public Administration Act (Act No. 6227 of 2 May 1978) no collective labour agreements may be concluded by the State, its institutions and the respective civil servants' unions". The directives subsequently fix the conditions for the extension of the period of validity of collective agreements already concluded, providing in particular that "if wage increases are granted, these may not exceed the annual increase authorised by the Executive for its officials". For its part, the Government also refers to later directives of the Government Council adopted at its Session No. 169 of 21 May 1981, and of the Budgetary Authority, adopted at its Session No. 71-82 of 3 March 1982, allowing the period of validity of collective agreements concluded before the enactment of the Public Administration Act (26 April 1979) to be extended. It states that collective agreements continue to be concluded in the public sector and that the Government has not engaged in any kind of action designed to limit the conclusion of such collective agreements.
37. 90. The Committee considers it imperative that the legislation contain specific provisions clearly and explicitly recognising the right of organisations of public employees and officials who are not acting in the capacity of agents of the state administration to conclude collective agreements. From the point of view of the principles laid down by the supervisory bodies of the ILO in connection with Convention No. 98, this right could only be denied to officials working in the ministries and other comparable government bodies but not, for example, to persons working in public undertakings or autonomous public institutions. The Committee also wishes to point out that, in so far as the mobile wage-scale system referred to in connection with the examination of the restrictions on wage negotiations in the private sector is applicable to the public sector, the principles indicated for the private sector are equally applicable to the rights of public officials not acting in the capacity of agents of the administration of the State.
38. 91. As regards the Bill to create the Collective Bargaining Commission for the Public Sector, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the Bill has been shelved and that there are no prospects of its discussion by the Legislative Assembly.
39. 92. As regards the Act for the financial equilibrium of the public sector, which according to the complainants constitutes evidence of failure to respect the established negotiations which were signed and in force with the workers' organisations, the Committee observes that, although the complainants have supplied the text of the Act, they have not objected to any of its provisions in particular. In these circumstances, and since the Act does not appear to affect trade union rights, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
40. 93. As regards the proposal by the Government for the complete reform of the part of the Labour Code concerning collective rights, the Committee has examined the draft sent by the complainant organisations. Although in the Committee's view some of the provisions of the draft might pose problems of compatibility with the principles of freedom of association, it does not seem opportune to pronounce on the matter, since the Government has stated that it intends to consult all the parties concerned and obtain their approval and that a series of tripartite subcommittees are to collate the results of their work in a single document. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the importance of the work undertaken in the area of collective labour relations, the Committee wishes to point out that the technical assistance of the International Labour Office might contribute effectively to the drafting of a proposed text for the reform of the Labour Code in which the rights enshrined in the freedom of association and collective bargaining Conventions are fully safeguarded.
41. 94. As regards the Bill to consolidate the solidarity associations, which according to the complainants are a movement supported by the employers and parallel to the trade union movement, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the complainants' objections are under discussion in the plenary of the Legislative Assembly. The Committee observes that the Bill governs a series of associations pursuing social objectives that are not specifically of a trade union nature. In particular, in section 4, the Bill provides that solidarity associations shall be bodies set up for an indefinite period, with their own legal personality, which, in order to achieve their objectives, may acquire all kinds of property, conclude all types of contracts and engage in all kinds of lawful operations for the purpose of improving the socio-economic conditions of their members in an endeavour to bring dignity to their lives and raise their standard of living by means of thrift, credit, investment and other profit-making operations and the development of housing, scientific, sports, artistic, educational, recreational, cultural, spiritual, social and economic programmes and any other kind of lawful activity designed to strengthen the bonds of unity and co-operation among employees, and between employees and their employers. Nevertheless, in view of the concern expressed by the complainants at the use made by these associations of the possibility provided for in the law for any group of workers to conclude direct settlements regulating conditions of work independently of trade union organisations, the Committee considers that, in the event of the Bill becoming law, the provisions governing solidarity associations should respect the activities of trade unions guaranteed by Convention No. 98.
42. 95. As regards the alleged measures taken by the Minister of the Presidency to establish a basis for the creation of blacklists of workers, the Committee notes that the complainants have sent an official circular addressed to Ministers and Executive Chairmen of autonomous institutions in August 1983, which reads as follows:
43. On the precise instructions of the President of the Republic, and in the face of strike threats in the public sector, I should be obliged if you would observe the following instructions:
44. Each Minister or Executive Chairman must forthwith organise an Emergency Group, which must make the necessary arrangements for essential services of the institution to continue in the event of a strike. This will require:
45. - The sending out of a circular to all staff, urging them to remain at their posts and warning them that the relevant legal provisions will be strictly applied to those who abandon their work without justification. Without prejudice to any other penalties to which they may be liable under the law, their wages will be automatically reduced in proportion to the length of their absence.
46. - As of this date the preparation by the Emergency Group of a plan for the maintenance of the essential services of the institution. For this purpose all holidays or leave of absence for personnel must be cancelled.
47. - The moment the strike begins, the Legal Department of the Ministry or autonomous institution concerned must request the intervention of the Labour Courts to have the strike declared illegal.
48. - At the same time a list must be drawn up of the instigators of the strike movement or those responsible for it. A list must also be made of persons who remain at work and persons who wish to remain at work but have been subjected to pressure in order to stay away.
49. - Once the Courts have declared the strike illegal, the Department of Personnel shall proceed to the dismissal of the striking employees, without any responsibility being incurred by the employer, in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code.
50. - The Legal Department must at the same time request the Ministry of Justice to take steps with the Public Ministry for the institution of legal proceedings against the instigators of the illegal strike movement and those responsible for it.
51. - You are requested to inform the President's Office of any abnormal movement or situation connected with the matter referred to in this Official Circular.
52. 96. With regard to this official circular of August 1983 concerning the illegality of any strike in the public sector, the Committee considers that such matters are not within the competence of the administrative authority.
53. 97. As regards the alleged application of penal sanctions for trade union activities, the Committee observes that the complainants have supplied specific information on only one case. This is a judgement of 27 March 1984 sentencing ten leaders of the Trade Union of the National Bank to six months' and one day's imprisonment (deferred for three years) and a fine of 1,200 colones each, in particular for abandonment of duty and incitement to collective abandonment of public duty.
54. 98. From the reasons adduced for this judgement it may be inferred: (1) that the strike was declared as a consequence of the refusal of the budgetary authorities to approve the budgetary implications of a wage adjustment agreement to reflect the rise in the cost of living, concluded between the Union and the Bank; (2) that the strike lasted three days (from 26 to 28 September 1983) and was followed by 90 per cent of the workers; (3) that the legislation does not authorise strikes in state public service bodies such as the National Bank of Costa Rica and that this was the reason for the imposition of the penalties mentioned in the previous paragraph.
55. 99. In this respect the Committee wishes to recall that the right to strike may be prohibited or largely restricted with respect to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authorities (among whom those performing bank services can obviously not be counted) or with respect to workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term (those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). (See, for example, 233rd Report, Case No. 1225 (Brazil), para. 668.) The Committee has considered that the banking sector is not an essential service in the sense mentioned (See 233rd Report, Case No. 1225 (Brazil), para. 668) and that nobody should be deprived of his liberty or subjected to penal sanctions for the mere fact of organising or participating in a peaceful strike. (See 230th Report, Case No. 1184 (Chile), para. 282.) . In addition, the Committee has considered that the exercise of financial powers by the public authorities in a manner that prevents compliance with collective agreements already entered into by public bodies is not consistent with the principle of free collective bargaining. (See, for example 234th Report, Case No. 1173 (Canada/British Columbia), para. 87.) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to guarantee the exercise of the right to strike of the workers of the National Bank of Costa Rica.
56. 100. In this connection, the Committee observed that the September 1983 strike at the National Bank of Costa Rica, although prohibited, took place as a result of the Government's failure to respect its commitment to approve the budgetary implications of a wage adjustment agreement concluded between the Bank and the Union. This, in turn, led to the sentencing of ten members of the executive committee of the Union for having organised the strike. The Committee considers that both the prohibition of the strike and the application of penal sanctions were incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
57. 101. In general, the Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the various Bills or Acts posing problems of conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
58. The Committee's recommendations
59. 102. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report, and in particular the following conclusions:
60. (a) In general the Committee recalls that all governments are obliged to respect fully the commitments undertaken by ratification of ILO Conventions and that a State cannot use the argument that other commitments or agreements can justify the non-application of ratified Conventions.
61. (b) The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the fact that, even under a stabilisation policy, the right to regulate conditions of employment, including wages, by means of collective agreements, may be restricted with respect to wage negotiations only under certain conditions; in particular, such restrictions should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers' living standards.
62. (c) The Committee observes that the legislation serving as the basis for restrictions on wage negotiation dates from August 1982 (Decree No. 13827-TSS) . In this connection, it requests the Government to indicate the measures it envisages with a view to removing the restrictions imposed by the legislation thereby enabling a return to free collective bargaining on wages.
63. (d) The Committee considers it imperative that the legislation contain specific provisions explicitly and clearly recognising the right of organisations of public employees and officials not acting in the capacity of agents of the state administration to negotiate collectively, a right which, in accordance with the principles, can only be denied to officials working in ministries and other comparable government bodies but not, for example, to persons working in public undertakings or autonomous public institutions.
64. (e) As regards the Bill to consolidate the solidarity associations, which according to the complainants are a movement supported by the employers and parallel to the trade union movement, the Committee observes that the Bill governs a series of associations pursuing social objectives that are not specifically of a trade union nature. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the concern expressed by the complainants, the Committee considers that, in the event of the Bill becoming law, the provisions governing the solidarity associations should respect the activities of trade unions guaranteed by Convention No. 98.
65. (f) With regard to the official circular of August 1983 concerning the illegality of any strike in the public sector, the Committee considers that such matters are not within the competence of the administrative authority.
66. (g) As regards the strike of workers of the National Bank of Costa Rica the Committee would recall that the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the civil service - civil servants being those who act on behalf of the public authorities - or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee considers that the banking sector is not a service that is essential in the strict sense of the term. In addition, it has considered that the exercise of financial powers by the public authorities in a manner that prevents compliance with collective agreements already entered into by public bodies is not consistent with the principle of free collective bargaining. The Committee considers that both the prohibition of the strike and the application of penal sanctions to the ten members of the executive committee of the Union were incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
67. (h) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to guarantee the exercise of the right to strike of the workers of the National Bank of Costa Rica.
68. (i) The Committee wishes to point out that the technical assistance of the International Labour Office might contribute effectively to the drafting of a proposed text for the reform of the Labour Code in which the rights enshrined in the freedom of association and collective bargaining Conventions are fully safeguarded. The Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the various Bills or Acts which raise problems of conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.