Informe provisional - Informe núm. 211, Noviembre 1981

1. 499. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Trade Union of Telephonic Workers (SNTT) dated 21 November 1980. The Government replied in a communication dated 7 February 1981.
2. 500. At its May 1981 Session, the Committee decided to transmit the main points of the Government's reply to the complainant for its comments. The SNTT supplied its comments in a communication dated 30 July 1981, which was forwarded to the Government. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 23 October 1981.
3. 501. The Dominican Republic 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 502. The SNTT alleges that on 29 October 1980, on the eve of negotiating a new collective agreement between the Dominican Telephone Company (CODETEL) and the SNTT, the company published a statement in the press to the effect that action would be taken against a small group of persons illegally using telephone equipment for long-distance calls. The complainant adds that the denunciation contained an indirect allusion to the workers dismissed on 29 October and that the purpose behind the company's action was to refuse to discuss the new collective agreement and to create circumstances propitious for breaking up the union.
2. 503. The complainant also adds that on 13 November 1980, when union members had gathered to hear their leaders' reports on the negotiations for reinstating the dismissed workers, the police appeared and without warning assaulted the workers, beating 17. The police also arrested 14 workers, including various trade union officers. One of them, Jests Fernández, the union's press and propaganda officer, was, in violation of the provisions on trade union immunity, dismissed on 21 November 1980 for having "discredited" the company.
3. 504. Lastly, the complainant states that the company has no intention of continuing to pay union leaves and wishes to compel the union to sign new terms much inferior to those contained in previous collective agreements.

B. The Government's reply

1. 505. The Government states that, according to the company, Mr. Jesús Fernández was dismissed for statements he had made to the press claiming that CODETEL was electronically recording users' calls and for having used insulting language against various of the company's managers in violation of the Labour Code. This allegation has been denied by the union and the case is before the courts to determine whether or not the dismissal was justified.
2. 506. Regarding the dismissal of other workers for reasons of service, the Government states that, according to the Department of Traffic, the persons dismissed were involved in illegal traffic of long-distance calls, an allegation which has also been denied by the union.
3. 507. Concerning the alleged assaults by the National Police, the Government states that it has no precise information on such events and that the intervention of the police was preventive action intended to maintain public order. The Government had succeeded in advancing the negotiations for concluding a new collective agreement prior to the date provided for in the existing agreement and for reinstating a number of the dismissed workers, as the company had been requested to do by the union, and the police, without disregarding the principles established by the Constitution, proceeded to disperse the pickets only in order to prevent unfortunate clashes. The Government adds that no person is being held in custody in connection with this case.
4. 508. In its last communication, the Government states that CODETEL and the SNTT have already approved most of the provisions of the new collective agreement, including a clause providing for unpaid full-time leave for two to three years for trade union leaders to allow them to attend to union business.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 509. The Committee notes that on 29 October 1980 the company CODETEL published a statement in the press to the effect that action would be taken against a group of workers for illegally using telephone equipment for long-distance calls and that on the same day it dismissed various workers. The Committee considers, however, that the complainant, by mentioning such facts without giving further particulars, has failed to bring out any relation between those facts and the aims allegedly pursued by the company (to refuse to discuss the collective agreement and create circumstances propitious for breaking up the union), especially as the dismissed workers, according to the Department of Traffic, were involved in illegal traffic of long-distance calls. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
2. 510. In connection with the dismissal of the trade union leader Jests Fernández, the Committee notes that a case is pending before the courts to determine whether the dismissal was justified or not. In view of the contradiction between the complainant's allegations and the Government's reply on this matter, the Committee requests the Government to send it the text of the judgement handed down in this respect so that it can examine this allegation in full knowledge of the facts.
3. 511. With respect to the allegation concerning police intervention during the trade union meeting held on 13 November 1980 for purposes of information, which allegedly resulted in the beating of 17 persons and the arrest of 14, including various union leaders, the Committee notes that the Government, while not expressly denying that persons were beaten or arrested, has stated that no one is being held in custody in connection with this case, that it has no precise information on the assaults, that the police intervention was preventive action, and that the police dispersed the pickets in order to avoid unfortunate clashes.
4. 512. In view of the fact that the complainant's and the Government's versions of the circumstances surrounding the police intervention differ and that the information available is insufficient to determine with certitude whether that intervention was warranted by a real danger to public order and not merely a hypothetical one, the Committee can only recall that freedom from government interference in the holding and proceedings of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede its exercise, unless public order is disturbed thereby or its maintenance seriously and imminently endangered.
5. 513. Lastly, the Committee notes that CODETEL and the SNTT have already approved most of the provisions of the new collective agreement, including a clause providing for unpaid full-time union leave for the union's leaders.