Informe provisional - Informe núm. 103, 1968

1. 99. This case has already been the subject of seven interim reports by the Committee, contained in paragraphs 133 to 152 of its 81st Report, paragraphs 271 to 277 of its 83rd Report, paragraphs 474 to 491 of its 85th Report, paragraphs 209 to 233 of its 87th Report, paragraphs 215 to 219 of its 90th Report, paragraphs 177 to 201 of its 93rd Report and paragraphs 121 to 187 of its 98th Report. All the foregoing were approved by the Governing Body.
2. 100. Following its latest examination of the case in May 1967, the Committee first of all recommended the Governing Body, as it had done on a previous occasion, to ask the Brazilian Government to keep it informed of the situation of the trade union leaders named by the W.F.T.U in its communication of 7 December 1964 who had not been released. The Committee pointed out that the Government had already given some information about those persons in its communications of 22 June 1965 and 24 May 1966.
3. 101. The Committee then recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on several allegations made by the W.F.T.U in a communication dated 29 November 1967. These were analysed in detail by the Committee in paragraphs 124 to 167 of its 98th Report.
4. 102. The above two requests for information were transmitted to the Government by letter dated 12 June 1967. The Government replied in a communication dated 5 January 1968.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Arrest and Sentencing of Trade Union Militants, Trade Union Leaders and Workers
  103. 103 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to sent its observations on the cases of Messrs. Ireneu Semionato, Joao Firmino Luzia, Antonio Chamorro, Alfonso Delelis, José Araujo Placido, Arthur Avalone, Augusto Vicente, José Molinidio, Luis Firmino Lima and Manuel Lourenço, stating the reasons for the arrest of these persons and for the prison sentences imposed upon them.
  104. 104 In its communication of 5 January 1968 the Government refers to the above matters in the following terms: " It has been explained clearly and precisely on previous occasions that such cases of conviction and arrest were in no way confined to so-called trade union leaders or others connected with the trade union movement, but extended to all those persons without distinction, belonging to various social classes and occupations, who were called to account for offences of which they had been accused after investigations set on foot by the revolutionary movement in this country. The said convictions were thus the outcome of regular procedures ordered by the Brazilian judicial authorities which acting in a normal manner and within their proper powers-tried all the persons accused of acts considered to be offences by the revolutionary authorities, whether or not those persons belonged to the trade union movement."
  105. 105 In its reply the Government also quotes a statement by the Director-General of the National Department of Labour, as follows: " One may say that the Revolution of March 1964 did not seek to deprive trade union leaders of their freedom or to lock them up in cells. Nor did it attempt to interfere with the exercise of the leadership or to diminish the safeguards which our Constitution, that of a free people, affords to its citizens. What did occur (and this applied equally to all the intellectual and social strata of Brazilian society) was the segregation-without the intention to discriminate against them-of all those who were or might be a genuine danger or serious threat to the new system which the Revolution had established with the object of ensuring that the whole people should be free and of defeating the plots against our national interest which were being hatched in foreign lands. So, at this time of legitimate self-determination by a people with imperishable traditions of democratic freedom, there can be no distinction, among the persons who have been arrested, tried or sentenced, between a trade union leader and any other individual disregarding our interests as a free people. It would be iniquitous to claim that the Brazilian authorities had arrested, tried or sentenced persons merely because they were trade unionists or union leaders. But even in such cases abuse of office leads to crime and may involve application of the punitive system which a revolution always carries with it."
  106. 106 The Director-General of the National Department of Labour concluded as follows: " Therefore, referring to paragraphs 174 to 179 [of the 98th Report of the Committee], I have only to inform you that there were no trade union leaders arrested or convicted, but simply persons in the position described above: this information makes it unnecessary to deal seriatim with each of the individuals named in the said paragraphs."
  107. 107 It follows from the above statements by the Government, and particularly from the passage reproduced in the preceding paragraph, that for the reasons set out there the Government does not deem it necessary to communicate-as the Committee asked-the precise grounds for the arrest and sentencing of the persons named by the complainants and referred to in paragraphs 100 and 103 above.
  108. 108 The Committee, therefore, feels that it must recommend the Governing Body to go on record deploring the Government's failure to co-operate in elucidation of the facts on this aspect of the case by providing, as requested, evidence in support of its assertion that the reasons for the conviction of the above-mentioned persons did not lie in their trade union membership or activity; the said failure making it impossible for the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Governing Body to reach informed conclusions on this aspect of the case.
• Allegations that Workers Were Threatened with Trial by Military Courts for Strike Action
  109. 109 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations made by the W.F.T.U to the following effect: that 147 miners of Morro Velho, listed by name, were threatened with trial by military courts for going on strike; that 35 workers, also named, of the National Motor Factory were in preventive detention pending trial by a military court for going on strike; and that 31 workers at the Ishikawagi plant, some of them listed by name, were also threatened with trial for the same reason.
  110. 110 In its observations, the Government says it has already explained that the right to strike of Brazilian workers is guaranteed by the Constitution and regulated by Act No. 4330 of 1964, which does not set up any military court to repress strikes or judge those engaging in them; it adds that the ordinary criminal courts are competent to deal with offences arising out of strike movements.
  111. 111 The Government then explains-not for the first time, it says-that there are indeed military courts in Brazil, headed by the Military High Court; that these form an integral part of the Brazilian judicial system; that they do not constitute an emergency procedure, but on the contrary form one of the powers of the Brazilian Republic.
  112. 112 The Government also quotes a statement made by the Director-General of the National Department of Labour in reply to the complainants' allegations on this aspect of the case. It runs as follows: " While recognising the right to strike, Brazil makes provision for penal sanctions only in case of abuses in the exercise of this right such as exceed the limits of labour-management relations and affect social order. This brings the matter within the scope of the police. Other kinds of strikes may constitute sabotage, which in certain industries can affect the national security."
  113. 113 In conclusion, the Director-General of the National Department of Labour declares that he has no knowledge of the facts alleged and that his department has no record of them.
  114. 114 Having regard to the Government's clear denial, and since furthermore the complainants spoke only of " threats " to which, they said, certain workers were exposed, but not of the actual appearance of the said workers before military courts, the Committee considers that sufficient evidence of infringement of trade union rights in that connection has not been adduced; it therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to " Ideological Attestations "
  115. 115 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations that candidates for election to trade union office were required to make an " ideological attestation ".
  116. 116 In its reply the Government quotes a statement on this matter by the Director-General of the National Department of Labour who says: " As regards the requirement of an ideological attestation, I consider that this is a domestic matter. The method, the procedure by which Communists are eliminated from the unions must be that best suited to national conditions."
  117. 117 The Director-General of the National Department of Labour closes with the statement that the requirement of an ideological attestion has been abolished by Brazilian legislation.
  118. 118 Accordingly, considering that there would be no object in its pursuing this aspect of the case, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that it does not call for further examination.
• Allegations relating to Threats to Dissolve the Brazilian Dockworkers' Union
  119. 119 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations that the Brazilian Dockworkers' Union had been suspended and was threatened with dissolution.
  120. 120 In a statement quoted by the Government, the Director-General of the National Department of Labour says that the authorities are seeking "to inject new life into the trade unions, which have been weakened by lack of interest on the part of their members. But the Dockworkers' Union has always been very powerful and has never been threatened with dissolution ".
  121. 121 Accordingly, considering that the complainants have not substantiated their allegations, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to the Presence of Police at Trade Union Meetings
  122. 122 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations that members of the political police were present at trade union meetings.
  123. 123 On this matter the Government refers to a statement by the Director-General of the National Department of Labour, who says: " Members of the political police might be present at trade union meetings if particular policemen had, in addition to their police duties, other work which entitled them to figure on the membership roll of the union. Apart from this, which is unlikely, the presence of political police is not a condition for the holding of union meetings ".
  124. 124 Here again, considering that the complainants have not adduced sufficient evidence in support of their allegation, and noting the Government's statement, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to Restrictions on the Exercise of the Right to Strike
  125. 125 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations that the exercise of the right to strike has been restricted and particularly on the scope of the legislative provisions mentioned by the complainants.
  126. 126 In its reply the Government quotes a statement by the Director-General of the National Department of Labour, as follows: " In Brazil there is no restriction on the right to strike, but only regulation of its exercise in accordance with the public interest and convenience. As in any country which claims to be civilised, abuses in the exercise of this right go beyond the field of labour law and become anti-social acts. Brazil, too, has penalties for anti-social behaviour."
  127. 127 The Committee takes note of the Government's statement on this matter but points out that its sense is very general, whereas some of the complainants' allegations are specific.
  128. 128 Therefore, bearing in mind that allegations respecting the right to strike lie within its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights, the Committee finds that, if it is to be able to reach an informed opinion on this aspect of the case, provision by the Government of further particulars regarding these allegations will be useful to it.
  129. 129 Specifically, the Committee would wish to be informed whether it is true, as the complainants allege, and as seems to follow from the language of the legislation to which they refer-Act No. 4330 of 1964 - that representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare are authorised, under section 8 of the Act, to be present at general meetings held with a view to the possible calling of strikes; whether they are entitled to address such meetings; and, if so, what are the objects and the practical effect of the said section.
  130. 130 According to the complainants, sections 12 and 13 of the Act give a list of essential activities which is so comprehensive as to include nearly all industrial activity. Noting that the list of essential activities given in Act No. 4330 of 1964 is indeed a long one, the Committee would wish to be informed whether workers thus deprived of a valuable means of promoting their occupational interests have access, instead, to machinery such as impartial conciliation and arbitration procedures.
  131. 131 The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to ask the Government to be good enough to provide it with information of the character indicated in the two preceding paragraphs, as well as any other information which the Government may think fit to provide regarding the allegations analysed in paragraphs 144 to 151 of the Committee's 98th Report.
• Allegations of Restrictions on the Right to Bargain Collectively
  132. 132 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations that restrictions had been imposed on the exercise of the right to bargain collectively, and to state the interpretation which the Government considers should be placed upon the legislative provisions mentioned by the complainants.
  133. 133 In its reply the Government states that Act No. 4725 of 13 July 1965, to determine methods for the fixing of new wage rates, does no more than lay down standards, strictly within the limits of national sovereignty, to promote economic recovery and counteract inflation, which in due course will benefit the workers also, and that there are no restrictions on the right to bargain collectively.
  134. 134 Having regard to the Government's statement, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination on its part.
• Allegations of Discrimination against Dockworkers and Railwaymen
  135. 135 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegations respecting discriminatory action against the dockworkers and railwaymen.
  136. 136 In its observations the Government quotes a relevant statement by the Director-General of the National Department of Labour, as follows: " In order to correct what it considered to have been errors of public policy regarding dock work, the Revolution issued Legislative Decrees Nos. 5 and 127, both stemming from major considerations of national security. This was a matter within the exclusive and indubitable competence of the Brazilian authorities in the legitimate exercise of their power to determine the affairs of this country and to undertake internal organisation." The Government explains that there has been no discrimination but merely restoration of equality for all Brazilian workers through abolition of the privileges enjoyed by certain groups; it adds that this was done without prejudice to special arrangements laid down by the Labour Code, which remains in force.
  137. 137 In the light of the Government's explanation, the Committee considers that the complainants have not demonstrated that there was infringement of freedom of association in the above regard, and therefore recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to the " Training " of Trade Union Leaders
  138. 138 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegation that the authorities had arranged courses of trade union training, to be directed by " specialists " on trade union matters belonging to the military police.
  139. 139 In its reply the Government refers to this matter in the following terms: " Nothing can be said against the preparation of our trade union officers at training courses. The State can and must encourage these, and such arrangements should be praised rather than condemned. In a climate of freedom it is for the State to assist in the promotion of trade union training; if it does, it is entitled to do so in accordance with the policy of precluding subversion and corruption which is now that of the Brazilian State."
  140. 140 As the above statements by the Government do not invalidate the complainants' allegations, the Committee cannot but feel some astonishment at learning-if such is indeed the case-that members of the military police are put in charge of trade union training courses. More generally, the Committee considers it must recommend the Governing Body to express the view that, while trade union training deserves encouragement, it should be provided by the unions themselves, which can of course take advantage of any material or moral assistance which the Government may offer to them.
• Other Allegations
  141. 141 In May 1967 the Committee recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government to send its observations on the allegation that the Bank Employees' Union of the State of Guanabara had been forbidden to hold its elections and on those respecting abuses by certain " controllers " appointed to supervise trade unions.
  142. 142 As the Government has not made any reference to these aspects of the case, the Committee recommends that it be asked once more to be good enough to present its observations thereon.