Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 5, 1953

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 5. The Governing Body will remember that, at its 118th Session (Geneva, 11-14 March 1952), it took the view that the case concerning the Dominican Republic called for further examination (of. First Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraphs 130 to 141, and Third Report of the Committee, paragraph 5). The Governing Body further decided that the Government of the Dominican Republic should be afforded an opportunity to discuss with the Committee on Freedom of Association the questions at issue before the Committee submitted further recommendations on the subject to the Governing Body (of. First Report of the Committee, paragraph 142).
2. 6. By a letter dated 21 March 1952, the Director-General informed the Government of the Dominican Republic of the Governing Body's decision and requested the Government to be good enough to appoint a representative who might be heard by the Committee at its third session.
3. 7. By a telegram dated 15 May 1952, the Government of the Dominican Republic accredited His Excellency, Mr. Franco Franco, Ambassador of the Dominican Republic in Paris, as its representative to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
4. 8. The representative of the Government of the Dominican Republic made his statement to the Committee at its meeting on 29 May 1952. The text of this statement is appended to the present document.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 9. The Committee, having taken note of the statement of the representative of the Dominican Republic, and having heard his oral explanations, came to the following conclusions concerning the various points at issue.
   • Receivability of the Complaint
2. 10. The Government of the Dominican Republic in the first place contested the receivability of the complaint, both in its letter of 17 January 1951 to the Director-General and through its representative to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
3. 11. In support of its contention the Government of the Dominican Republic puts forward the following arguments in particular:
   • (a) the Dominican persons in exile are not qualified to present the complaint because they are not representatives of trade unions but political agitators who have been convicted of crimes or offences under ordinary law. As concerns two of the signatories to the complaint, the Government maintains that they have never exercised trade union functions but that they were members of proscribed political parties and had been convicted of crimes against the security of the State. As for the two other signatories to the complaint, the Government, while admitting that they were at one time trade union leaders, claims that they were relieved of their functions by their own constituents and, consequent upon abuses of their functions committed to the detriment of the members of the trade unions of which they were leaders, were sentenced for these abuses by the courts of ordinary law.
   • (b) if-continues the Government of the Dominican Republic-the original complaint thus has a fundamental defect, the same is necessarily true of the complaint transmitted by the Inter-American Confederation of Workers (today the Inter-American Regional Organisation). The representative of the Government of the Dominican Republic admitted, however, that the question might take on a different aspect if the Inter-American Confederation of Workers had taken the complaint upon itself.
4. 12. The Governing Body decision establishing the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission deals in the following terms with the question of receivability of complaints:
   • The only complaints receivable, with the exception of those officially transmitted to the I.L.O by the General Assembly of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, are those which come either from organisations of workers or employers or from Governments.
5. 13. The Committee on Freedom of Association, at its first session, and in the terms which will be recalled below, formulated its views on the question of receivability of complaints, which views the Governing Body made its own in adopting the First Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association
6. 27. ...Questions sometimes arise as to whether a particular complaint is to be regarded as having been made by an organisation of workers or employers. More particularly, it is sometimes suggested that persons purporting to act on behalf of such an organisation are not entitled to do so because the organisation has been dissolved or because the individuals lodging the complaint have ceased to be resident in the country concerned. The Committee considers that it would be altogether inconsistent with the purpose for which the procedure for the examination of allegations concerning the infringement of trade union rights has been established for it to admit that the dissolution or purported dissolution of an organisation by governmental action extinguishes the right of the organisation to invoke the procedure.
7. 28. Difficult questions may arise in such cases concerning the exact authority and knowledge of the facts of the persons claiming to act on behalf of the organisation concerned and the reliability of the testimony of persons no longer resident in the country concerned. The Committee will be prepared to consider such questions on their merits as necessary, but it will not regard any complaint as being irreceivable simply because the Government in question has dissolved or purported to dissolve the organisation on behalf of which the complaint is made, or because the person or persons making the complaint have taken refuge outside the country concerned. In taking this view it has been influenced by the conclusions unanimously approved by the Governing Body in 1937 in the Labour Party of the Island of Mauritius Case when considering a representation under Article 24 of the Constitution of the Organisation (then Article 23). In the Mauritius Case the Governing Body laid down the principle that it would exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not a body is to be regarded as an industrial association for the purpose of the Constitution of the Organisation and will not consider itself bound by any national definition of the term "industrial association". The Committee proposes to follow the same principles when considering the receivability of complaints which come before it.
8. 14. With respect more particularly to the case of the Dominican Republic, the Committee, having noted that the complaint was presented not only by the four Dominican persons, but also by the President of the Inter-American Confederation of Workers in the latter's name, reached the conclusion at its first session that, for this reason, the complaint was receivable, whether the objections raised against the qualifications of the Dominican persons in exile signatories to the complaint were justified or not.
9. 15. After careful examination of the new arguments presented by the representative of the Dominican Republic, the Committee maintained its previous decision for the reason that the Inter-American Confederation of Workers had not restricted itself to pure and simple transmission of the complaints of the four Dominican persons in exile, but had formally taken the matter over.
10. 16. In his letter of 25 October 1950 to the Director-General, Mr. Bernardo Ibáñez did, in fact, state that:
    • in his capacity of President of the Inter-American Confederation of Workers and Member of the Governing Body of the I.L.O, he wished to add his own request to the Governing Body of the I.L.O to study the above-mentioned request at its earliest opportunity and to submit it to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Committee on Freedom of Association.
11. 17. Since the Inter-American Confederation of Workers (now succeeded by the Inter-American Regional Organisation) is clearly a workers' organisation within the meaning of the Governing Body decision establishing the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission, the Committee recommends to the Governing Body that it decide that the complaint is, for this reason, receivable, whatever the validity of the objections raised against the authors of the first complaint.
    • Alleged Political Nature of the Complaint
12. 18. The Government of the Dominican Republic maintained, in the second place, that the complaint was purely political in nature, since the complainants were "politicians in exile" whose "attitude has always been to stir up revolt within and without the Dominican territory ". The representative of the Government of the Dominican Republic specified that at least two of the signatories had been convicted of having taken part in the so-called Cayo Confites naval and military expedition of 1947.
13. 19. For their part, the complainants have alleged-without, however, presenting any shadow of proof in support of their assertion-that one of the signatories to the complaint, residing in Cuba, had been kidnapped and probably murdered "by the Dominican Government in order to deprive the working class of its principal leader and the Dominican people of one of its most active champions of democracy".
14. 20. The Committee considered that these two sets of data were not within the competence of the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association and that it was not called upon to examine their merits.
    • Allegations concerning the Suppression of the Free Trade Union Movement
15. 21. These allegations bear both on the legal status and on the factual situation of the Trade Unions.
16. 22. It will be recalled that the complainants alleged the following facts in particular:
    • (a) The General Confederation of Dominican Workers was forcibly suppressed in 1930. A demonstration protesting this measure was dispersed by the police, and several persons were killed on this occasion.
    • (b) Certain trade unions were able to reconstitute themselves subsequently, but were placed under extremely strict governmental supervision. The Confederation of Dominican Workers alone, a factitious body in the service of the Government, was authorised.
    • (c) A Decree of 21 June 1936, instituting a "Trade Union Day", in fact placed the trade unions under the supervision of the administrative authorities.
    • (d) Strikes occurring in 1942 and in 1948 were forcibly broken, and several trade union leaders were killed ; others were arrested and, after a year of imprisonment, interned in a village which they could not leave without authorisation from the Government ; yet others were obliged to seek refuge in an Embassy. From 1947 to the present, the number of trade union leaders and of ordinary workers who have suffered a similar fate has steadily mounted.
17. 23. The Government of the Dominican Republic in its first reply, as well as the representative of the Government in his statement to the Committee, disputed the veracity of these allegations:
    • (a) The Government did not dissolve the General Confederation of Dominican Workers in 1930.
    • (b) On the contrary, the Government, by a whole series of social welfare measures, has promoted the rise of the working class and of the trade union movement in particular. The proof of this is that many trade unions have been freely constituted in the various regions of the country and have affiliated themselves in the Confederation of Dominican Workers, which is the most representative organisation of workers and is entirely independent of the Government.
    • (c) The Decree instituting Trade Union Day was rescinded in 1940.
    • (d) The Government limits itself to formally denying that strikes have been suppressed by violence and that reprisals were taken against leaders for their trade union activities alone.
18. 24. Finally, with respect to the legal status of trade unions, the Government emphasised that the Dominican workers have complete freedom under the legislation currently in force. The representative of the Government drew the attention of the Committee, on the one hand, to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic guaranteeing freedom of association and, on the other, to the Labour Code of 11 June 1951, a copy of which the representative submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
19. 25. In examining the legal position of trade unions, the Committee therefore referred to the text of the Constitution, on the one hand, and to the Labour Code, on the other, which, by virtue of its Article 689, repeals all previous laws, including those concerning trade unions.
    • Constitutional Guarantee of Freedom of Association
20. 26. Under the heading of " individual rights ", Article 6, paragraph 6 of the Constitution promulgated on 10 January 1947 recognises freedom of assembly for peaceful purposes as fundamental, inherent human rights.
21. 27. Paragraph 12 of the same Article guarantees individual security and, in this connection, provides as follows : No one may be imprisoned or have his liberty restricted without a written warrant stating the reasons therefor issued by the competent judicial official, except in the case of a person caught in the act of committing a crime. No sentence whatsoever may be passed on any person unless he has been given a public hearing and been duly summoned to attend such hearing. This provision, however, does not apply to cases within the competence of disciplinary tribunals. Any person deprived of his freedom must be brought before the competent court within forty-eight hours of his arrest, failing which he must be liberated. Every arrest ceases to have effect or is transformed into imprisonment in the forty-eight hours following the bringing of the person concerned before the competent court ; within the same period, the person concerned must be informed of the decision rendered to this effect. Any person deprived of his freedom without just cause or without the legal formalities prescribed having been observed or under any circumstances other than those laid down by law shall be liberated forthwith, either on his own demand or on the demand of any other person.
22. 28. Article 7 of the Constitution provides that the enumeration of the rights of the individual set forth in Article 6 is not limitative.
23. 29. In case of grave and imminent danger to national sovereignty, the Congress-the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in joint session-may decree a state of emergency and suspend the guarantees of the individual mentioned in Article 6 of the Constitution, with the exception of those relating to the inviolability of human life. If the Congress is not in session, the President of the Republic may issue a similar decree ; he is obliged, however, to convene the Congress by the same measure, so that it may meet within ten days to decide whether the decree shall remain in force or be revoked. If this provision is not observed or if the Congress does not meet, the Presidential decree automatically ceases to have effect.
24. 30. In the event of danger to the public peace, the Congress is empowered, by paragraph 7 of Article 3 of the Constitution, to decree a state of siege and to suspend certain guarantees of the individual, including freedom of association and of assembly, freedom of travel and individual security, with the exception, however, of the guarantees relating to normal judicial procedure (Article 6, paragraph 12 (c) ). If the Congress is not in session, the President of the Republic exercises this power (Article 49, paragraph 8).
25. 31. The Constitution may never be suspended or revoked by any power or authority, nor by popular acclamation. It may be amended only in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Constitution itself (Article 112) ; no amendment may violate the political system, which must always be civil, republican, democratic and representative (Article 111).
26. 32. Any law, decree, regulation or measure contrary to the Constitution is automatically null and void (Article 40).
27. 33. It appears from the analysis of the above provisions that freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution and that this guarantee cannot be suspended except in the cases and subject to the conditions laid down in the Constitution itself. Moreover, any legislative or administrative measure contrary to the provisions of the Constitution is automatically null and void. It would appear, therefore, that any person who considers himself wronged by any such measure can bring his case before the courts.
    • The Labour Code
28. 34. In order to judge of the importance of the new Labour Code of 11 June 1951, one may examine the provisions relating to its scope which are contained in Title I of the Code and those relating to the status of trade unions contained in Title V.
    • Scope of the Code
29. 35. The scope of the Code is determined by the definition of the word "worker" in its first article. According to its provisions, "any physical person who furnishes material or intellectual service by virtue of a contract of labour " is a worker. By reason of this very definition, the following persons are not considered as workers and do not, consequently, come within the scope of the Code:
    • (a) persons exercising a liberal profession, unless they devote all their time to the exclusive service of a particular person ;
    • (b) commission agents and salesmen ;
    • (c) commercial representatives and travellers who do not work directly and exclusively for a single person; and
    • (d) farmers and sharecroppers.
      • In addition, the labour relations of public officials and employees are regulated by special laws. Certain categories of workers are subject to a special régime. Thus, according to Article 259, the provisions relating to trade unions do not seem to apply to home workers. According to Article 265, the provisions of the Code are not applicable either to agricultural undertakings or to agricultural undertakings of an industrial nature or to stock-breeding or sylvicultural undertakings, if such enterprises do not employ more than ten workers. As for the maritime transport industry, it is for the Government to determine by means of regulations to what extent the provisions of the Code are applicable to sailors. Within these limits, the trade union régime established by the Code applies to all workers, both manual and intellectual.
    • 36. It cannot, however, be deduced from the restrictions concerning certain categories of workers which are not covered by the Code that the latter are not granted the right of association by virtue of ordinary law in the matter of the rights of association in general.
      • Trade Union Régime
    • 37. Under the terms of Article 293 of the Code, any association of workers constituted in conformity with the Code for the purpose of studying, promoting and defending the common interests of its members is a trade union. The trade unions must be registered by the State Secretariat of Labour (Article 311), failing which their actions are null and void (Article 351.). The request for registration must be accompanied by the rules of the trade union, the record of proceedings of the constituent assembly, and a list of the founding members. The Secretariat of Labour may, within ten days, return the documents to the persons concerned, pointing out the corrections that may need to be made. Registration may only be refused in the two following cases:
    • (a) if the statutes do not contain the essential provisions for the normal functioning of the association, or if any of these provisions is contrary to the law; and
    • (b) if any of the conditions required by the Code or by the statutes for the Constitution of trade unions are not met (Article 350).
30. 38. The regulations concerning the operation of trade unions provided in Article 322 to 346 of the Code, to which the statutes of the trade unions must conform, are limited to specifying the essential conditions necessary to the normal operation of the trade union. In this connection, the Statement of Policy declares that the regulations concerning the organisation and operation of trade unions are based on those relating to joint-stock companies, subject, of course, to the modifications made necessary by the nature of trade unions.
31. 39. In commenting on the provisions of the Code relating to the Constitution of trade unions, the representative of the Government of the Dominican Republic told the Committee that registration may not arbitrarily be refused to trade unions which fulfil the conditions laid down by the Code. A trade union has the right to be registered. In case of dispute, recourse to the courts and, in the last resort, to the Supreme Court, is provided for.
    • Purposes of Trade Unions
32. 40. The purposes of the trade unions, which are defined in a general way by Article 293 cited above (to study, promote and defend the common interests), are specified by Article 299, which assigns to them the following functions in particular : to study conditions of work ; to conclude collective agreements, defend the rights ensuing from them, and to revise the collective agreements in conformity with the provisions of the Code ; to settle economic labour disputes in equitable and peaceful fashion ; to improve conditions of work, life and production ; to study and prepare legislative reforms for the above purposes. This enumeration is not, however, exhaustive, for certain articles of the Code further provide the possibility for the trade unions to establish social and cultural services, mutual societies, etc. Furthermore, the Code recognises, in principle at least, the right to strike of the workers. It is, however, forbidden to the trade unions to intervene in political or religious questions.
33. 41. It would thus appear from the various provisions which we have analysed that the workers included in the scope of the Code are free to constitute organisations of their choice and to be members of them without previous authorisation:
    • Operation of Trade Unions
34. 42. The Code contains no provisions empowering the administrative authorities to intervene in the activities of trade unions. Article 345 alone imposes on the trade unions the obligation to maintain certain records (membership list, inventory of movable and immoveable goods, daily record of receipts and expenditures, record of proceedings of the various trade union bodies), but it is solely incumbent on the competent justice of the peace to initial these records on their first and last pages.
35. 43. The Code, as noted above, has rescinded all previous regulations concerning trade unions including, consequently, any measure which, according to the allegation of the complainants, enabled the Government to intervene in the administration of trade unions. It seems, therefore, that the legislation currently in force is intended to ensure full autonomy to the trade unions.
    • Dissolution of Trade Unions
36. 44. The dissolution of trade unions is regulated by Articles 353 and 356 of the Code ; according to the first of these provisions, a works union is automatically dissolved consequent upon the definitive closing of the undertaking for which it is constituted ; indeed, as it is constituted for the workers of a single undertaking, such a union has no further reason to exist if the undertaking itself ceases to exist. Under the terms of Article 356, the registration of a trade union may be voided by decision of the courts if the union engages in activities foreign to its legal purposes ; the voidance of the registration automatically entails the dissolution of the union.
37. 45. In connection with these provisions on the dissolution of trade unions, the representative of the Government of the Dominican Republic told the Committee that, apart from these cases, the Government does not have the right to void registration.
38. 46. It would seem from these articles that a union is not subject to suspension or dissolution by administrative action.
    • Trade Union Federations and Confederations
39. 47. Articles 357 to 361 of the Code deal with trade union federations and Confederations. Under these provisions, the unions may form local, provincial, regional or national federations ; these federations may in turn form Confederations, subject to the condition that two-thirds of their members meeting in a general assembly declare themselves favourable. The federations and Confederations must be registered ; the provisions applicable to unions in general also regulate the federations and Confederations.
40. 48. It would appear that the Code ensures to workers' organisations the right to constitute federations and Confederations and to affiliate with them. This being so, it also seems that the legislation currently in force does not prevent the reconstitution of the former General Confederation of Dominican Workers, which was dissolved, according to the allegations of the complainants, in 1930.
41. 49. The Code contains no provision respecting the affiliation of unions to international organisations. The representative of the Government of the Dominican Republic pointed out in this connection that Dominican law, being national law, cannot provide for such cases, but that it does not prohibit them. Failing a negative provision on this subject, employers' and workers' organisations do not thus appear to be deprived of the right to affiliate with such organisations.

Z. ANNEX

• APPENDIX
• TEXT OF THE STATEMENT MADE ON 29 MAY 1952 BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DOMINICAN GOVERNMENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
• Having been appointed by the Government of the Dominican Republic to represent it before the Committee on Freedom of Association, which has before it the complaint made against the Government of the Dominican Republic by so-called " labour leaders in exile " of my country, I have the honour to appear before this honourable Committee of the International Labour Organisation, that great and noble institution in which humanity has placed the most fervent hopes and desires and to which my Government has given continuing proofs of profound adherence.
• I must add that, apart from the painful nature of the procedure which has been engaged, I appear before you with lively satisfaction not only because the pleasure is great which arises from truth and justice but also because, knowing the work which has been done since 1930 on behalf of the activities and well-being of the workers in my country, I am proud of it both as a Dominican and as a man.
• Let us, before all, consider what the matter in hand is, and then let us immediately bring all the necessary precision and clarity to the analysis of the case.
  1. 1 The complaint. As is known, the complaint was contained in a letter of 29 September 1950 addressed from Havana to the Director-General of the International Labour Office by Justiniano José del Orbe, Hernando Hernández, Angel Miolán and, Mauricio Báez, and accompanied by two letters from the Inter-American Confederation of Workers supporting the complaint.
  2. 2 Qualifications assumed by the authors of the complaint. In their abovementioned letter, these persons call themselves " labour leaders in exile ", and sign in capacities to which we shall have occasion to refer elsewhere in this statement. We may say here and now that one of them reveals, unintentionally, the true character of all the signatories in signing as follows : " Angel Miolán, Secretary-General of the Workers' and Farmers' Affairs Committee of the P.R.D.", that is to say of the Dominican Revolutionary Party.
  3. 3 Alleged basis of the complaint. Not wishing to enter into detail, for the moment, in the pack of insults, calumnies and affronts contained in this letter of complaint, we shall only say that the latter contains, in particular, the following allegations : " (a) the General Confederation of Dominican Workers was forcibly dissolved in 1930 and, since that time, the Government has crushed all protests, strikes and other workers' demonstrations by means of repressive measures taken especially in 1936, 1942, 1946 and 1947, and has, in this way, effectively suppressed most of the trade union organisations. It authorised the Constitution only of the Dominican Federation of Labour, a factitious body in the service of the Government ; (b) by virtue of a Decree of 21 January 1936 instituting a " Trade Union Day "-a Decree which is still in force-the Government interferes in the administration of existing trade union organisations."
  4. 4 Lack of qualifications of the signatories. As the Government of the Dominican Republic has always maintained, the signatories of the accusation are simply delinquents who have committed crimes and offences and who can in no way claim to represent the Dominican workers. Thus, the good faith of the Inter-American Confederation of Workers was, without any doubt, abused when it approached the International Labour Organisation as it did.
• What is the position of each of the signatories of the complaint from the point of view which we here take ? The reply is as follows:
• Mauricio Báez was elected organising secretary at the Workers' Congress held in 1946, but was subsequently relieved of his functions by a decision of the Council of Federations of Dominican Workers for having, together with Ramón Grullón, cultural secretary, misused the list of the Union of Commercial Workers of Ciudad Trujillo, representing it to the Central Electoral Committee as a list of the members of the Popular Socialist Party (Communist) which they directed. Their dismissal was subsequently approved by the Workers' Congress held in Santiago in 1947.
• Mr. Mauricio Báez was condemned in his absence, on 23 September 1948, by the Second Penal Chamber of the judicial district of Santo Domingo, to 30 years at hard labour for crimes against the security of the State and for having taken part in the plot of Cayo Confites with the object of overthrowing by force the legally constituted Government of the Dominican Republic. In fact, his name appears in the report of the Committee of Enquiry of the Organ of Consultation of the Organisation of American States.
• Mr. Justiniano José del Orbe was the president of the Day Labourers' Union of San Pedro de Macoris and he was condemned on 7 July 1947 by the Court of Appeal of San Pedro de Macoris to two years of prison and a fine of RD. $300 for misdemeanours of fraud committed to the prejudice of the very trade union organisation of which he was the president. Prosecution was made in this case on a complaint presented by the members of this union. Mr. del Orbe was subsequently pardoned on 27 February 1949 by Decree No. 5669 issued by the President of the Republic.
• Mr. Hernando Hernández has never in any manner represented the Dominican workers. He was condemned on 25 October 1948 by the First Penal Chamber of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo to two years of prison, to deprivation during five years of the rights provided in Article 42 of the Penal Code, and to be placed under the supervision of the Superior Police during the same period of time, for having violated Act No. 1443, which prohibits in the Dominican Republic communist, anarchist and other groups which are contrary to the Constitution. He was pardoned on 27 February 1949 by Decree No. 5669, issued by the President of the Republic.
• Mr. Angel Miolán also has never represented the Dominican working class. He was condemned in his absence on 30 January 1948 by the Second Penal Chamber of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo to 30 years at hard labour for crimes against the security of the State, that is, for having taken part in the plot of Cayo Confites.
  5. 5 Importance of the character of intermediary assumed by the Inter-American Confederation of Workers as concerns the receivability of the complaint. It is clear indeed that, if this mediation may be reduced to simple transmission of the complaint, the latter retains its original defect of lack of qualification on the part of its signatories. If, on the other hand, the Confederation, in intervening in the case with which we are dealing, has really made the complaint its own, the said defect may have been covered and it is for the Committee on Freedom of Association to decide whether or not this is so.
  6. 6 The purely political origin of the complaint made against the Dominican Government. It is logical that the Committee on Freedom of Association, which is entirely devoted to the realisation of the high objectives which constitute its task, should not be aware of the true motive at the basis of the complaint in question, to wit an extremist political conspiracy. Our duty will be to demonstrate this here as briefly as possible.
• Several years ago, with the help of certain Latin American Governments of extremist tendencies, the resolve was born, in agreement with the above-mentioned exiled Dominicans, to overthrow the existing Government of the Dominican Republic, and this despite the clear consecration of the Pan-American States of the doctrine of non-intervention. The centre of this foreign conspiracy was, precisely, Havana.
  19. In 1947, this unbelievable resolve led to the organisation of the military and naval expedition of Cayo Confites, in which two, at least, of the signatories to the complaint participated: del Orbe and Miolán. Two years later, in 1949, always with the participation of the above-mentioned exiles, a second expedition was organised from foreign territory, fortunately without any success whatever.
• As concerns the complaint now in question, it is intended to employ for these unavowable and inadmissible ends the immense moral influence and the great significance which, increasing from day to day, surrounds the International Labour Organisation, whose noble objectives and untiring activities deserve the profound gratitude of peoples and Governments.
  7. 7 Analysis of the substance of the complaint. The time has come to analyse the complaint with respect to its substance and, in so doing, we propose to begin with the second allegation, in order to simplify as far as possible this statement.
• I. By virtue of a Decree of 21 January 1936 instituting a " Trade Union Day" -which decree is still in force-the Government interferes in the administration of existing trade union organisations (according to the allegation of the complainants).
• The reply of the Government of the Dominican Republic is as clear as it is precise : this decree was repealed in 1940.
• Furthermore, while it was in force, this provision, far from having the purpose incorrectly alleged by the complainants, was merely intended, as, in spite of everything, is clear from the text presented by the complainants themselves, to promote the development of Dominican trade union associations, which were soon able to enjoy complete legal personality simply by being registered by the State Secretary of Labour and Social Welfare, which strives with all means at its disposal to help them, without any intervention whatsoever in their operation.
• In its latest stage, the legislation in the matter, and, consequently, the provisions concerning freedom of association, are contained in the Trujillo Labour Code, Articles 293 to 361, which was promulgated on 11 June 1951, with which the Committee may acquaint itself thanks to the copy which we have the honour to present with this statement.
• With all deference, we must point out to the Committee on Freedom of Association that the true Dominican economic development dates from 1930 and that the trade union associations were, before that time, actually in an embryonic state. Since that time, the Government itself has made great efforts to promote their organisation and development, giving them all the help in its power for the good of the workers and of the society as a whole.
• Thus falls the first allegation to be examined of the complaint under consideration ; no Act or Decree currently in force exists in the Dominican Republic placing the trade unions or workers' associations under the direction or supervision of any administrative authority.
• II. The General Confederation of Dominican Workers was forcibly dissolved in 1930 and, since that time, the Government has crushed all protests, strikes and other workers' demonstrations by means of repressive measures taken especially in 1936, 1942, 1946 and 1947, and has, in this way effectively suppressed most of the trade union organisations. It authorised the Constitution only of the Dominican Confederation of Labour, a factitious body in the service of the Government (allegation of the complainants).
• In affirming the foregoing, the signatories of the complaint lie in each and every facet of their allegation.
• It is entirely false to declare that the General Confederation of Dominican Workers was dissolved in 1930 ; the same is equally true of the statement relating to the repression of protests and strikes ; the same is true, finally, of the asseveration concerning the suppression of trade union organisations and concerning the factitious nature of the Dominican Confederation of Labour, that is, the Confederation of Dominican Workers.
• This Confederation, in its Constitution, in its organisation, in its development and in its activities' is completely independent of the Dominican Government, which is not to say that it is its opponent or enemy in the life of reciprocity and solidarity which should be that of all modern nations.
• On the other hand, far from opposing the Constitution of workers' associations or from impeding their development or their activities, the Dominican Government has, for many years, been their constant supporter.
• The Trujillo Labour Code devotes 69 articles, that is, all of its Title V, to the trade unions. Further, long before its promulgation, freedom of association was clearly consecrated by legislation. Also, the Constitution of the State, which guarantees freedom of association and of assembly for peaceful ends (Article 6, paragraph 6), contains a provision, renewed and extended in 1947, which constitutes the basis of all the advanced social legislation of our country, by virtue of which the greatest possible advantages at this time have been established or encouraged in all aspects of the life of the workers and of their respective families.
• For our Government, in fact, the concept of justice and social solidarity has become inseparable from the peace, order and prosperity of the nation.
• III. The complaint of the so-called Dominican labour leaders in exile contains, for the rest, a pack of insults, calumnies, affronts and falsities directed against the person of the President of the Republic or against his Government. To these we simply reply with the silence and contempt which such attacks merit.
  8. 8 General observations concerning the First Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. In presence of a complaint lacking all proof, and from which its political origin and purposes spontaneously appear, the Dominican Government has, with the help of the legal texts in force, demonstrated the existence of a situation completely contrary to the accusations of which it has been the object.
• In supplement, and only in supplement, great and important social achievements accomplished in the Republic have been referred to, and the work of a national jurisprudence which is more and more favourable to the interests of the workers has also been alluded to, in accordance with the spirit of the existing texts in the matter.
• An enumeration of these multiple legislative provisions or of the countless works carried out for social ends would lead us to exceed the proper limits of a statement of this kind. We shall, nevertheless, at the proper time, present a list of the most important of them, and we may cite, here and now, among so many institutions, those relating to the protection of wages, to labour accidents and to social security.
  9. 9 The Third Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association. Paragraph 5 of this report refers to a telegram received from the Confederation of Dominican Workers, an unofficial organisation, in which it is stated that the Government of the Dominican Republic respects freedom of association, and in which the said organisation invites the International Labour Organisation to send a mission to our country to examine objectively the real situation of the workers. On the other hand, in the same paragraph 5, there is reported the receipt of a letter and telegram from " certain exiled Dominican trade union leaders "-(we cite)-stating that Mauricio Báez, one of the signatories to the complaint of 29 September 1950, had been kidnapped and murdered, in reprisal, by order of the Dominican Government. It is added, finally, that, in view of these various communications, the Committee has decided to maintain without modification the recommendation which it submitted to the Governing Body in its First Report.
• The Confederation of Dominican Workers, a duly constituted organisation, free and independent it its operation, presents one more proof of the lack of gravity and foundation of the allegations in the complaint. We would point out, in this connection, that this proof is reinforced by the invitation which the Confederation extended to the International Labour Organisation for the purpose indicated above. There does not, therefore, exist the slightest fear to have verified the facts relating to the life and activities of the workers in the Dominican Republic.
• As concerns the alleged kidnapping and murder of Mauricio Báez and the laying of such deeds to the charge of the Dominican Government, we shall only say that, with respect to this last, at least, there never was a falsehood more badly patched together than this one. It does not surprise us, however, that the so-called labour leaders in exile pile up these and other slanders and falsehoods against our Government, since all this serves, as they see it, to achieve the political ends which they pursue from foreign lands, in order to destroy the peace, well-being and prosperity which reign in our country.
  10. 10 General considerations relating to the trade union situation in the Republic. With the coming into force of the Trujillo Labour Code, on 24 October 1951, thus abrogating Act No. 311, there was established for the first time in our country, by Title V of the said Code, a complete and uniform legal régime for the Constitution and operation of occupational associations.
• On the other hand, important factors or circumstances have favoured the formation of workers' associations in complete liberty. The economic development of the Republic since 1932 has been considerable. In the second place, the vigorous social policy carried through by the Dominican Government has led to the raising of the standard of living of the workers, and to a vigorous cultural development, through primary instruction which is truly free and compulsory, and through secondary education at night which enables the workers rapidly to advance their education by placing all facilities at their disposal. Finally, the guarantees which the Government has always ensured to the associations on condition that they pursue legal objectives, have also been factors favourable to the development of the trade union movement.
• The most recent statistics in the matter show the existence of 39 trade unions in the District of Santo Domingo, 23 in Santiago, 14 in Barahona, 11 in Duarte, 28 in San Pedro Macoris, 8 in Ezpaillat, 14 in Puerto Plata, 13 in La Vega, 4 in Montecristy, 9 in Trujillo, 17 in La Altagracia and only a few in El Seybo and in Trujillo Valdés. These trade unions are affiliated with the Confederation of Dominican Workers, which is the largest and most representative of the Dominican trade union associations.
• Another highly interesting aspect of the activities of the workers' associations is to be found in the judicial work concerning labour problems, which is already very considerable. It may be added that this work is more and more favourable to the interests of the working classes.
  11. 11 Summarising all that has been set forth in the foregoing, it is right and proper to state that, in contradiction to the allegations of the signatories to the complaint in question, not only has the Dominican Government not been guilty of the violations of freedom of association which they charge but that the legal texts and factual considerations, as also the vigorous social policy pursued in our country, are all factors favourable to the proper development of the right of association.
  12. 12 Procedure followed and position of the Government of the Dominican Republic. The letter containing the complaint of the so-called Dominican labour leaders in exile, together with the two letters from the Inter-American Confederation of Workers which was appended to it, was brought to the knowledge of the Dominican Government, in addition to the decision of the Officers of the Governing Body of 23 November 1950, through the intermediary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Relations of our country.
• As the Officers did not consider it desirable to initiate the procedure provided for the preliminary examination of these communications before knowing whether the Dominican Government desired to present its observations and, if it did, before having the benefit of these observations, our Government presented them together with its letter of reply as soon as it had been informed of this by the Director-General.
• The Committee on Freedom of Association considered the complaint in question at its meeting in Geneva (10-12 January 1952), and suggested to the Governing Body that it authorise the affording of an opportunity to the Dominican Government-as to the other Governments concerned-to discuss with the Committee the questions at issue before the Committee attempted to formulate any recommendations on the subject for consideration by the Governing Body. This suggestion was approved by the Governing Body, which asked the Government of the Republic to appoint a representative who might be heard by the Committee at its present meeting. Inspired as always, by the most complete deference and adherence to the International Labour Organisation, the Dominican Government hastened to make the requested appointment, and it is to this that I owe the opportunity to speak to you.
• With respect to the position of the Dominican Government, we may say, first of all, that through the observations and the reply which it has presented, the Government of the Dominican Republic rejects-and here confirms that rejection - in the clearest, most precise and most sweeping manner, the unfounded allegations and request contained in the complaint.
• Our Government has not failed to place in clear relief, on the one hand the lack of qualification of the complainants and, on the other, the origin and aims of extremist political intervention of the complaint in question, even if the first observation concerning the mediation of the Inter-American Confederation of Workers is dismissed.
• The very important question of freedom of association was the object of constructive work of the greatest value at the Fifth Conference of American States Members of the International Labour Organisation. In these labours special attention was paid to the particular circumstances and conditions of the development of the peoples of Latin America. The necessity to distinguish adequately and clearly between the political and trade union aspects was, above all, the subject of very important statements, which the Director-General in his masterly speech thought fit to comment upon in a very interesting way.
• We have taken the liberty of making these useful observations concerning the present case, whose extremist political character we have already duly underlined.
• With respect to the final aspect of the position taken by the Government of the Dominican Republic, we consider it fitting to state that, if it has referred most prematurely in the document containing its reply and its observations, to the possible consideration of referral to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission, the Government has done so only because such action was expressly requested by the complainants and because, on the other hand, it was requested to present appropriate observations on the complaint. For this reason the Dominican Government considered that it would be useful to state the position it would take respecting a procedure which does not concern the cases covered by the provisions of Article 26 of the Constitution of our international organisation, and, in so doing, drew the logical conclusions. It expressed its sincere desire (respecting the other possibility envisaged by the complainants) never to discuss the case with them-directly or indirectly-in view of their character of delinquents convicted by our national courts for crimes and offences punishable by our correctional laws, and that these complainants will not be permitted to go to the Dominican Republic to advise, in any way whatsoever, the Commission which may eventually be appointed in connection with the case before us.
• The Dominican Government takes particular pleasure in stating, by reason of what has just been set forth, that it has in no way intended to fail in the slightest way in the duty of respect which binds it to this honourable Committee as well as to the Governing Body and to the International Labour Organisation as a whole.
• We have reached the end of our statement on the complaint made against the Government of the Dominican Republic by so-called Dominican " trade union leaders in exile ". In this statement we have made it our duty to stamp our words with the seal of clarity, precision, and conciseness which truth and justice require.
• Also in the name of my Government, I ask that you reject the complaint in question, its signatories being devoid of the indispensable qualifications ; the purpose of this complaint, its purely political character and origins, have been demonstrated, as have also been established its entire falsity and its absolute lack of foundation.
• Dr. Tulio FRANCO FRANCO, Representative of the Dominican Government to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
• Geneva, 29 May 1952.