Informe provisional - Informe núm. 236, Noviembre 1984

651. In Case No. 1277, the following organisations submitted a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in the Dominican Republic: the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (GRIT) (communications dated 30 April and 8 May 1984), the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) (communications dated 30 April and 31 August 1984), the World Federation of Trade Unions (communications dated 28 April and 15 May 1984), the World Confederation of Labour (communications dated 3, 15 and 31 August 1984) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (communications dated 11 May, 31 August and 14 September 1984).

1. 651. In Case No. 1277, the following organisations submitted a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in the Dominican Republic: the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (GRIT) (communications dated 30 April and 8 May 1984), the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) (communications dated 30 April and 31 August 1984), the World Federation of Trade Unions (communications dated 28 April and 15 May 1984), the World Confederation of Labour (communications dated 3, 15 and 31 August 1984) and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (communications dated 11 May, 31 August and 14 September 1984).
2. 652. These communications were transmitted to the Government which first replied in a telegram dated 21 May 1984 and subsequently sent certain observations in a letter dated 28 June 1984.
3. 653. The complaint relating to Case No. 1288 is contained in a communication dated 28 May 1984 submitted by the five Dominican trade union central organisations mentioned in Case No. 1277, namely the National Confederation of Dominican Workers (CNTD), the General Union of Dominican Workers (UGTD), the Unified Workers' Central (CUT), the Workers' Trade Union Autonomous Federation (CASC). Subsequently the Unified Workers' Central (CUT) and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Permanent Congress of Trade Union Unity of Latin American Workers (CPUSTAL) sent additional information in support of their complaints and made new allegations in communications dated 21, 22 and 28 June, 4 July and 3 September 1984.
4. 654. The Government for its part sent a very partial reply in a communication dated 13 July 1984 and reiterated the information which it had given in Case No. 1277 in a communication of 1 September 1984.
5. 655. In the light of the serious nature of the allegations, the Director-General immediately intervened and sent telegrams to the Government of the Dominican Republic on 4 May and 4 September 1984.
6. 656. The Dominican Republic has ratified both 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 complainants' allegations

1. 657. The complainant organisations give a general outline of the serious acts of repression against the trade union movement during its protest against the tripling of the cost of living following an agreement reached between the Dominican Government and the International Monetary Fund at the end of April 1984.
2. 658. In particular they express their deep concern at the news of the death and the injury of several workers, the massive arrests of militants and trade union leaders and the occupation of trade union premises.
3. 659. According to the GRIT and the ICFTU in their communications of 30 April and 11 May 1984, during the days of protest organised by the Dominican Trade Union Council (which groups together the five workers' central organisations of the Dominican Republic) against the exorbitant increase in the price of essential products, 65 workers died, 600 were injured and 4,000 detained. The WCL, in its communication dated 3 May, puts the number of dead at 37, with 157 persons injured and 4,358 arrested. For its part the WFTU, in its communication dated 28 April 1984, confirms the allegations of the other complainant organisations and stresses in particular the need for the ILO to take measures within the framework of the United Nations system to guarantee that the granting of loans by the International Monetary Fund does not entail conditions which may lead to such tragic events.
4. 660. The ICFTU, in its communication of 11 May 1984, also adds that on 27 April 1984 the armed forces occupied the headquarters of the National Federation of Dock Workers (POASI) and that on 8 May the trade union leaders Carlos Enriquez Arias, Mariano Negrón and Francisco Guerrerro of the National Confederation of Dominican Workers (CNTD) as well as the Secretary for Education of the General Union of Dominican Workers (UGTD) were arrested. The WFTU, in its communication dated 15 May 1984, points out that the Secretary-General of the Unified Workers' Central (CUT), Cristóbal Durán, and the leader of the Dominican Association of Teachers (ADP) and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) were also arrested. It also confirms the arrest of Carlos Enriquez Arias and alleges that the CGT leader. Julio de Peña Valdes was subject to police persecution.
5. 661. The Secretaries-General of the five Dominican central trade union organisations, the CASC, CNTD, UGTD, CUT and the CGT, in their joint communications dated 28 May 1984, provide detailed information on the events which occurred. They explain that in order to defend the Dominican workers from the disastrous consequences of the economic crisis affecting the country and which had led to a reduction in purchasing power and an increase in unemployment, their five central trade union organisations decided jointly on 26 January 1984 to establish a unified plan of resistance. Peaceful marches were thus organised for 4 February 1984 in Santo Domingo and Santiago as well as in the interior to demand that the Government should break off negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, freeze the prices of foodstuffs and medicines, fix a minimum monthly wage of 200 dollars and introduce a general wage increase, reform the social security system, carry out agrarian reform to provide for peasant ownership of land and guarantee the exercise of trade union activities.
6. 662. On 17 April 1984, that is ten days after the five central organisations had held a national day of protest against hunger, the President of the Republic, Dr. Salvador Jorge Blanco, announced to the country that the Government had reached a preliminary agreement with the International Monetary Fund to obtain a loan which would lead to the transfer of imports, with the exception of petroleum and its by-products, to the parallel foreign currency market. The Secretaries-General of the five complainant organisations explain that these measures resulted in an increase of more than 100 per cent in the price of foodstuffs and an increase of more than 300 per cent in the cost of medicines.
7. 663. The organisations add that these increases unleashed a powerful popular protest movement throughout the country on 23, 24 and 25 April 1984. The movement was crushed in a criminal manner by the Government. The Secretaries-General of the five central complainant organisations confirm moreover that the armed forces and the police caused the death of 64 persons, men, women and children, and that 400 persons were injured and 4,000 persons were imprisoned.
8. 664. The specific infringements of freedom of association with which the Government is charged by the complainant Secretaries-General are the police occupation of the premises of the CGT, UGTD and the National Federation of Dock Workers of Arrimo (POASI) on 27 April 1984, when trade union leaders and active members were physically prevented from entering and leaving the premises, as well as the police occupation of the premises of the CGT, UGTD, CNTD and the CUT and the CASC on 29 April 1984; the occupation of the residence of the Secretary-General of the CGT on 24 April 1984; the refusal of the Secretary of the Interior and Police to authorise a worker's march on 1 May 1984; the detention for three days of the national leaders of the CNDT, UGTD, CGT and CUT, Messrs. Arias, Valdez, Guerrerro, Galval and de la Rosa and the trade unionists Rámon Ramírez and Dionisio de Leone, arrested by agents of the secret police on 8 May 1984, after they had participated in a press conference at the headquarters of the National Union of Professional Journalists (SNPP); the arrest throughout the country of 300 trade unionists belonging to the five central organisations between 6 and 9 May, and the acts of persecution against Mario Vasquez, José Duran and Julio de Peña of the CASC, CUT and the CGT; the complainants allege that all these repressive measures were designed to prevent the holding of the national strike which had been called for 9 May 1984. Furthermore, they point out that administrative circulars dated 7 May 1984 were sent out to public employees threatening them with dismissal if they failed to report for work on 9 May during the national strike called by the five central organisations and by the Independent Peasant Movement (MCI). The five Secretaries-General also allege that, from January 1984 onwards, attempts were made by the Government to dismantle the UGTD.
9. 665. In a subsequent communication dated 28 June 1984, the CUT, which is affiliated to the WFTU, reports that 100 persons died during the tragic days of 23, 24 and 25 April 1984 and calls attention to the occupation of its premises and those of other central organisations and the arrest of the trade union leaders Messrs. de la Rosa and GaIvan. It adds that on 14 June its Santiago headquarters were occupied by the police and that Antonio Cruzy was arrested; in the same way the trade union leader Robles Fortuna was arrested at his home on 19 June 1984; the director of the Department of Working Women was also arrested on her return from Cuba where she had been participating in a trade union training course. Furthermore the CUT adds that the secret police spied on and persecuted trade union leaders of its organisation, a situation which forced it to terminate its workers' education activities from 24 June 1984.
10. 666. In a communication dated 4 July 1984, the CGT points out that on 20 June 1984, agents of the secret service of the national police arrested hundreds of trade union leaders and militants, including Julio Peña Valdez and Carlos Enriquez Arias, Secretaries-General of the CGT and the CNDT, as well as Juan José Jerez, Secretary-General of the Federation of Workers of the North (affiliated to the CGTD). The persons against whom no charges were made were released on 20 June at 7 p.m. On the 23 June, agents of the secret police occupied the headquarters of the CGT and arrested the Secretary-General of the Dominican Association of Teachers (ADP), Raphaël Santos, as well as the Secretary for Education of the ADP, Juan Pastro Minaya, the Secretary of the CGT Federation of Sugar Workers (FENAZUCAR) and Victor Rufino Alvarez, treasurer of the INDRHI trade union, Raphaël Rodriguez, treasurer of the UGTD and Raphaël Rondol, who were kept in custody until 25 June 1984 when they were released without any charges having been made against them.
11. 667. Finally, the CUT, in a communication dated 3 September 1984, reiterates its allegations concerning the occupation of its premises and the tapping of its telephone communications as well as the arrest of José Francisco Ramoz, of the CUT, Gabriel del Rio Doñe, of the CASC, Carlos Enrique Arias, of the UGTD, Juan Pablo Reyes, of the UGTD, and Barbarin Mojica of POASI. The residences of José Cristóbal Duran and Julio de Pella Valdez, Secretaries-General of the CUT and the CGT, were allegedly again searched. The complainants state that the arrests and detentions mentioned above lasted from 29 August to 2 September 1984.
12. 668. Furthermore, in telegraphic communications dated 31 August 1984, the ICFTU, WCL and CLAT denounce the arrest of the five Secretaries-General of the central organisations of the Trade Union Council when these leaders were holding a meeting during the night of 29 August to decide on a general strike if the Government authorised the increase in the price of fuel and essential services. On the morning of 30 August the five Secretaries-General of the central organisations in question were thus arrested.
13. 669. Subsequently in a telegram dated 14 September 1984, the ICFTU reports that the five Secretaries-General arrested on 30 August were released on 2 and 3 September 1984.

B. The Government's reply

1. 670. In a telegram dated 21 May 1984 the Government points out that no trade unionist is being held in detention and that those who were arrested under powers which enable the Government to deal with disturbances of the public peace were immediately released. The Government of the Dominican Republic also emphasises that it is respectful of civil liberties and trade union freedom.
2. 671. In subsequent communications dated 28 June and 1 September 1984, the Government explains that, as a result of its negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, various economic measures had been implemented resulting in certain necessary adjustments to enable the country to have funds available to meet its commitments with the World Bank and to obtain the credits vital to the development of the country. However, the Government had taken protective measures to ensure that the most disadvantaged social classes did not support the entire burden of these structural changes in the economy.
3. 672. In the same way, the Government states that it recently promulgated an Act granting workers an increase of 40 per cent in the minimum wage. Furthermore, the prices of several essential goods have been frozen and other measures of a social nature have been taken including the setting up of more than 600 popular shops or pharmacies which will sell, at cost-price, more than 200 medicines classified by the international health bodies as being essential, as well as the establishment of popular markets to ensure that the essential goods can reach the public at reasonable prices.
4. 673. The Government however confirms that on 23 and 25 April 1984 violent public demonstrations occurred both in the capital and the interior of the country; these included in particular the sacking and burning of public and private property and flagrant acts of aggression against the authorities responsible for keeping the peace. Acting within the limits of the law, the authorities resisted these attacks which unfortunately resulted in the death and injury of several persons. The Government states that the action of the armed forces and the police was not directed against any particular sector, whether trade unions, students or other citizens.
5. 674. On the other hand it adds that the trade union organisations took advantage of the dissatisfaction resulting from the necessary economic adjustments and presented the Government, as they themselves state in their complaint, with a series of demands which constituted a programme of government impossible to implement immediately because of a number of factors. This programme of an essentially demagogic nature went beyond social matters into the political sphere. Thus the Dominican Government could not allow trade union or political organisations or small groups of the population to disturb the public peace, responsibility for which rests on the Government within the framework of its constitutional mandate.
6. 675. The Government explains that as a consequence the Trade Union Council took advantage of the situation resulting from the disturbances fermented by the opposition forces and called for a strike on 27 April and 1 May to be accompanied by demonstrations which would have met with total failure since, according to the Government, the population would not have participated. The Government also states that strikes, demonstrations and work stoppages carried out without the authorisation of the legally constituted authorities are a flagrant infringement of the law and that these events become dangerous when they occur in an unfavourable climate such as that which it has described. According to the Government, the politisation of trade union organisations has done a great disservice to the trade union movement in the Dominican Republic.
7. 676. In conclusion, the Government states that no trade union headquarters is at present occupied, that the security measures adopted around the trade union premises were of a preventive nature designed to avoid the repetition of the serious incidents which had previously occurred following the call for a strike and demonstrations made by the complainant trade union organisations and it affirms once more that throughout the territory there is no trade unionist in prison as a result of the exercise of his trade union activities and that those who were detained were immediately released after questioning by the security services. According to the Government, the facts alleged by the complainants have been grossly exaggerated and some are not even true. On the contrary, in the view of the Government, trade union activities in the country are completely normal and the Government guarantees their preservation and strengthening.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 677. These cases concern essentially the serious incidents which occurred during days of protest in April and May 1984 which had been organised by the five Dominican trade union central organisations grouped together under the Trade Union Council against the very large increase in the cost of living following the agreement signed between the Dominican Government and the International Monetary Fund at the end of April 1984. The protest movement resulted in the death of many persons and the injury of many others, the arrest of trade union leaders and the temporary occupation of trade union premises. The Committee must firstly express its deep concern at and censure of the particularly serious nature of these incidents, in particular the death of several persons.
2. 678. The Committee notes the Government's acknowledgement that the negotiations with the International Monetary Fund led to the adoption of economic measures and adjustments designed to enable the country to have sufficient funds available to meet its commitments with the World Bank and to obtain the credits vital to the country's economy. However, according to the Government, measures have been taken to ensure that the most disadvantaged social classes do not bear all the burden of these structural changes and it mentioned the increase of 40 per cent in the minimum wage and the freezing of the prices of essential goods as well as the establishment of 600 popular shops and pharmacies which will sell at cost price medicines which are essential to the health of the population, as well as popular markets which will sell essential products to the public at accessible prices.
3. 679. Nevertheless the Government confirms that during the disturbances of 23 to 25 April 1984 the authorities were obliged to combat the acts of popular aggression. According to the Government, the call by the Trade Union Council for workers to strike on the 27 April and 1 May was of a demagogic and political nature and the Government was obliged to adopt security measures around trade union premises to prevent the repetition of the serious incidents which had already taken place. Furthermore, the Government maintains that the arrests lasted only a short time and that the persons concerned were immediately released after questioning by the security services.
4. 680. The Committee observes, however, that the complainants for their part allege that the actions in question were undertaken in support of social claims. As a result of the disastrous consequences of the economic crisis affecting the country which had led to a reduction in purchasing power and an increase in unemployment, demands were made on the Government to break off negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, freeze the prices of foodstuffs and medicine, establish a minimum monthly wage at a certain level and to increase wages.
5. 681. The Committee considers that the claims of the five Dominican central trade union organisations taken as a whole did have an essentially trade union character. The Committee therefore regrets deeply that the increase in the price of foodstuffs and medicine led to a social protest movement which resulted in deaths and injuries and many arrests and it recalls that in cases in which the breaking up of a demonstration so as to restore public order has resulted in injuries and the loss of human life, it attaches great importance to the fact that a thorough inquiry be carried out to determine responsibilities so as to avoid the repetition of such actions; it requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of such an inquiry.
6. 682. Furthermore, the Committee has always considered that the right to strike is a legitimate and even essential means available to workers to promote and defend their occupational interests. The Committee has added that this right should not be restricted solely to industrial disputes likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective agreement: workers and their organisations should be allowed to express in a broader context, if they so wish, any dissatisfaction they may feel as concerns economic and social matters affecting their members' occupational interests [see 172nd Report, Case No. 885 (Ecuador) para. 385; 181st Report, Case No. 899 (Tunisia), para. 242]. The Committee is conscious that the fact of exercising a trade union activity or holding a trade union mandate does not imply any immunity from the ordinary penal legislation but it recalls that it is the responsibility of the Committee to verify itself whether the persons concerned have been arrested for common law offences or for trade union activities. In the present case, since the trade union leaders were arrested on several occasions and released after a few days' detention without any charge having been brought against them, the Committee considers it useful to point out to the Government that it should ensure that the authorities concerned have appropriate instructions to eliminate the danger of detentions being based on trade union activities [see 147th Report, Case No. 777 (India), para. 214; Case No. 753 (Uruguay), para. 345].
7. 683. As regards the allegations concerning the prohibition of the demonstration of 1 May, the Committee recalls that the right to organise public meetings and processions on 1 May is, as it has pointed out on several occasions, an important aspect of trade union rights. However, the Committee has also stressed that it is the responsibility of the Government as the guardian of public order to determine, in the exercise of its security powers, whether, in any given circumstances, even trade union demonstrations may jeopardise public order and security and to take the necessary preventive measures to circumvent this danger. However if, in order to avoid disturbances, the authorities decide to prohibit a meeting, they should, in the Committee's view, strive to come to an agreement with the organisers of the meeting in order to allow it to be held in some other place (perhaps on private premises) where there would be no fear of disturbances [see, for example, 139th Report, Case No. 666 (Mauritania), para. 60 and 204th Report, Case No. 962 (Turkey), para. 255].
8. 684. As concerns the temporary occupation of the premises of several trade unions, the Committee considers that such an occupation may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities. In the present case the Government claims that these temporary occupations were of a preventive nature and states that the premises are no longer occupied by the forces of order. However, the Committee wishes to stress the great importance which it attaches to the inviolability of trade union premises to guarantee freedom of association and trusts that the Government will take measures to avoid the repetition of such actions without a search warrant.