Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 20, 1956

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 3. The Committee had occasion to submit conclusions to the Governing Body on a number of complaints relating to alleged violation of trade union rights in Venezuela in its First and Sixth Reports. A brief summary of these is given below.
   • Complaints of the American Federation of Labor and, the Venezuelan General Confederation of Labour
2. 4. These complaints, analysed in the First Report of the Committee related to the general situation of the trade union movement in Venezuela following the assumption of power by a Military Junta on 24 November 1948. The trade union movement was alleged to have been the subject of a campaign of repression culminating in the dissolution, by administrative action, of the Venezuelan General Federation of Labour and its affiliated federations of trade unions. Many trade union leaders were stated to have been imprisoned ; it was alleged that trade union premises were closed and the goods of all the dissolved associations seized. The trade union press was suppressed ; workers were persecuted on the pretext of participation in subversive political activities. The remaining trade union organisations which were not then dissolved were alleged to have been obliged, by ministerial order, to renew their executive bodies, the former officials being declared ineligible for re-election.
3. 5. The remaining allegations related to the dissolution of 46 petroleum workers' organisations-again by administrative action. The reason for this dissolution is alleged to have been a strike in the oilfields. The workers are alleged to have been subjected to measures of repression, including the incarceration of more than 3,000 of them.
4. 6. With regard to these two allegations, the Government presented a number of observations' to the effect that the dissolution of the General Confederation of Labour was ordered because of the participation of that organisation in an illegal political strike. The Government took this measure only when it was apparent that the Confederation had been turned into an instrument for political agitation, its unlawful activities having culminated in the presentation of an ultimatum to the Government on 23 February 1949 threatening resort to direct action. In the face of such a challenge the Government proceeded to dissolve the organisation. The illegal character of the activities of the Confederation contravened the provisions of the Labour Code and the regulations issued under it relating to the procedure laid down for initiating collective disputes. The freezing of trade union funds was ordered so as to prevent them being used for purposes foreign to trade union activity. The detention of trade union leaders, ordered as a security measure, was a measure taken exclusively on the ground of their political activities.
5. 7. With regard to the dissolution of the petroleum workers' unions, the Government stated that this dissolution was ordered because the unions concerned ordered a strike contrary to formal provisions contained in the collective agreements then in force. The sanctions taken for illegal strikes were based on provisions of the Labour Code and the Government considered that similar measures had been taken in other countries and had not, in its view, constituted an infringement of freedom of association. According to the Government, a considerable number of the petroleum workers' unions subsequently reorganised and initiated new collective agreements.
   • Conclusions of the Committee in Its First Report
6. 8. In its First Report the Committee adopted the following conclusions:
7. 127. With regard to the allegations relating to the general situation of the trade union movement in Venezuela, the Governing Body has at its disposal the report of the I.L.O Mission to Venezuela and the observations of the Government of Venezuela on the same report. The data necessary for appreciating the position are therefore available.
8. 128. The dissolution of the petroleum workers' unions, to which the second part of the complaint relates, took place after the events dealt with in the above documents and have therefore not been the subject of any similar examination. The versions given by the Government and by the complainants differ considerably with regard to the circumstances under which the events took place which gave rise to the dissolution of the petroleum workers' unions, but they are in agreement as to the dissolution having actually taken place. It is quite clear from the text of the dissolution decree attached to the complaint that the measure was taken by the administrative authorities without the case first having been submitted to the competent courts.
9. 129. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends that the case merits further examination by the Governing Body.
10. 9. With respect to the future policy to be followed, the Committee made the following pronouncement in the same report:
11. 142. The Venezuelan Government has not been formally requested to indicate whether it would be willing to consent to reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. Under the procedure laid down by the Governing Body this question does not arise until the Governing Body itself has decided that the Government concerned shall be asked to give its consent to reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding Commission. Although the Government has indicated in its preliminary observations on the complaint that it would not be willing to consent to such reference, the Committee does not consider that such a preliminary reply precludes the Governing Body from discussing further whether it is advisable to make a formal request to the Government concerned that it should consent to reference of a case to the Fact-Finding Commission. They venture to hope that in future cases the preliminary observations of governments will not anticipate any request which the Governing Body may or may not think it appropriate to make after it has had an opportunity of considering the facts of the case and expressing its views ....
    • Decision of the Committee Contained in Its Third Report
12. 10. The conclusions adopted in its First Report were amended by the Committee in its Third Report, as follows:
13. 4. The Committee also had before it a letter from Mr. Montoya, Venezuelan Government representative on the Governing Body, informing the Committee that he had further observations to present on behalf of his Government relating to Case No. 2 (Venezuela). Under these circumstances, the Committee decided to amend the recommendation which it had submitted to the Governing Body in its First Report and, accordingly, recommends the Governing Body to postpone examination of this case in order to enable the Venezuelan Government to transmit its supplementary observations to the Committee. The Committee will report further on this case to the Governing Body when the observations in question have been transmitted to it.
14. 11. The Governing Body, at its 118th Session (Geneva, March 1952), considered the First and Third Reports of the Committee and decided to postpone the examination of the case.
    • Complaints of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and Other Trade Union Organisations
15. 12. In the meantime, a complaint dated 25 April 1952 was received from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and communicated to the Government of Venezuela which confirmed and supplemented similar complaints against the Government of Venezuela presented to the Economic and Social Council by various trade union organisations.
16. 13. These complaints which, in part, repeat the allegations made in the earlier communications from the American Federation of Labor and the Venezuelan Confederation of Labour, related especially to the dissolution of various trade unions in 1949 and to the dissolution of the petroleum industry trade unions in 1950. They also alleged the detention of trade union leaders.
17. 14. With respect to these new complaints, as with respect to the earlier complaints, the Government presented a series of observations in separate communications forming a continuous whole and, through its representative, presented verbal statements at the Committee's meeting on 23 June 1952.
18. 15. In its communication dated 19 May 1952 the Government stated that there had been important developments in the trade union situation in Venezuela. Since January 1951 a large number of trade unions had been legally constituted and by the middle of 1952 there existed a total of 395 trade unions and four federations. In the view of the Government, these figures demonstrated that the Government favoured the development of trade unionism but did not mean that it could tolerate the affiliation of trade union organisations to national or foreign political parties or their engaging in political activities foreign to the purposes expressly assigned to them by the Labour Law. The exercise of the right of meeting had also been facilitated, previous authorisation no longer being required. The number of collective agreements had increased appreciably between 1950 and 1952. In particular, the Government had paid particular attention to negotiations in the petroleum industry, the Ministry of Labour having obtained from the petroleum undertakings a promise not to alter working conditions during the negotiation of the new contracts. The Government had given aid to the trade union organisations by assuming the costs of premises and materials. With reference to the freezing of the funds of the dissolved organisations, the administrative commission charged with administration of the funds had returned a considerable sum to new trade unions formed by workers who had belonged to the dissolved organisations. Each case of devolution of funds had been thoroughly studied.
19. 16. In the same communication, the Government analysed the jurisprudence of the Committee on Freedom of Association in other cases, particularly with respect to Case No. 24 concerning the complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions against the Government of the United Kingdom (Cyprus). The Government considered that the complaints presented against the Government of Venezuela were similar to those examined in Case No. 24, dealing with associations of a clearly political character.
20. 17. In a second communication of the same date, 19 May 1952, the Government of Venezuela called attention to the report of the Credentials Committee of the 35th Session of the International Labour Conference. In that report, the Credentials Committee recommended the rejection of the protest presented against the credentials of the Venezuelan Workers' delegate to the Conference.
21. 18. In the statements presented verbally by the representative of the Venezuelan Government at the meeting of the Committee on 23 June 1952, the Government declared that the strike which had led to the dissolution of the petroleum workers' unions was, from the juridical point of view, an illegal movement, because the trade unions which caused it were bound by collective agreements. The Government had warned the trade unions of this before it proceeded to dissolve them, but in view of their refusal to take heed, the Government found itself obliged to dissolve the trade unions in order to maintain production in the petroleum industry which was vital to the country.
22. 19. In its later communications, dated 5 November 1952, 26 November 1952 and 17 February 1953, the Government repeated its earlier statements, because it considered that the new complaints which had been transmitted to it-the complaint of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and similar complaints-did not contain any new allegations. The Government transmitted to the Committee the text of a speech made by the President of the Government Junta on the eve of the elections on 30 November 1952, in which he stated that the policy of the Venezuelan Government was to re-establish in the country a Constitutional régime expressed through the will of the people. In its last communication, dated 17 February 1953, the Government presented a memorandum on the evolution of the trade union situation. It stated that the Ministry of Labour had adopted a liberal policy and that no restrictive measure had been taken against the trade union movement. With the creation of new trade unions in various regions of the country the ground was prepared for the Constitution of a national Confederation. The freedom of action enjoyed by the trade unions was demonstrated by the extensive amount of collective bargaining being undertaken, particularly in the petroleum industry. The draft Constitution then being examined by the National Constituent Assembly contained clauses guaranteeing freedom of association, recognising the right to strike, authorising collective agreements, etc.
    • Conclusions of the Committee in Its Sixth Report
23. 20. The Committee, after noting that from the information presented by the Government there appeared to have been some improvement in the trade union situation as a whole, formulated conclusions with reference to the two principal allegations.
24. 21. With regard to the dissolution of the petroleum workers' unions, the Committee, after finding that " the penalties provided for under the Labour Code in case of strikes called in violation of the legislation in force were imposed only on the persons actually responsible for the strikes but not upon the trade union organisations ", concluded:
25. 1002. The Committee, on the basis of the actual facts of the case, found that the dissolution of the oilworkers' union had not been carried out in accordance with the provisions of article 193.
26. 1003. The Committee reached the same conclusion with respect to article 199, which provides that an industrial association should not be affiliated to or associated with a national or foreign political group, a fact which has never been proven.
27. 22. With reference to the allegations relating to the dissolution of the petroleum workers' unions, the Committee reached the following conclusions:
28. 1005. The Committee therefore considers that the explanations given by the Government have not invalidated the conclusion which the Committee reached at its meeting in January 1952, namely that the oilworkers' unions were dissolved by administrative action.
29. 1006. The Committee has nevertheless taken account of the new information communicated by the Government in its reply of 19 May 1952. This information tends to show that the situation in the petroleum industry has again become normal. The Government emphasises the fact that the oilworkers' unions, which had been dissolved in 1950, have been reconstituted in the same districts and with the same membership. Furthermore, the Government points out that the collective agreements concluded in 1947 were kept in force and that, if it was forced to intervene in the negotiations between the employers and the unions, it was in the interest of the workers themselves, as the Government has succeeded in getting better working conditions embodied in the collective agreements. Finally, the Government has called upon the representatives of the trade unions to collaborate with the authorities and the employers in various bodies set up in the petroleum industry.
30. 1007. It therefore appears that the oilworkers' unions have been enabled to be reconstituted and are in a position to carry on their functions normally.
31. 23. With respect to the allegations relating to the trade union situation in general, the Committee reached the following conclusions, which were approved by the Governing Body when it adopted the Sixth Report of the Committee at its 121st Session:
32. 1012. From its examination of the case as a whole, the Committee has reached the following conclusions:
33. (1) With regard to the trade union situation in general, the Committee has noted with satisfaction that some of the restrictions previously imposed on the exercise of trade union rights have actually been raised, as is evidenced by the restoration of the freedom of trade union meeting, the restitution of trade union funds which had been seized, the freedom to form trade unions and, within certain limits, trade union federations or Confederations. However, it does not appear that the decrees issued in 1949 which dissolved the Venezuelan Confederation of Workers and most of its affiliated unions and federations have actually been repealed. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for the Government to envisage the adoption of measures to restore to employers and workers the full freedom to form and join trade union organisations of their own choosing.
34. (2) With regard to the trade union situation in the petroleum industry, in particular, the Committee has noted with satisfaction that the trade unions which were dissolved in 1950 have been able to re-establish themselves in the same districts and with the same membership as before. The Committee nevertheless wishes to emphasise that the dissolution of the trade unions in the petroleum industry, decreed pursuant to the law respecting full powers, constituted a serious infringement of the exercise of trade union rights and was contrary to the universally accepted principle, which is enunciated in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, that workers' and employers' organisations should not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
35. (3) With regard to the re-establishment of fundamental guarantees, the Committee has also noted with satisfaction that most of the fundamental freedoms suspended in 1948 have been restored. It has noted, also, that, according to the provisions of the draft Constitution which the new Constituent Assembly is now examining, labour legislation will be required to ensure to workers the right to form trade unions and other fundamental trade union rights. The Committee, convinced that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can develop only under a régime which guarantees fundamental human rights, expresses the hope that the new Constituent Assembly will re-establish these guarantees in full.
36. (4) The Committee has also noted with satisfaction that the majority of the trade union leaders or members who were in custody have been set free. It suggests that the Government might consider the possibility of liberating also the trade union leaders or members who are stated still to be in custody and not to have enjoyed the guarantees afforded by normal judicial procedure.
37. (5) The Committee has noted the assurances given by the Government that all measures taken against trade unions or against trade union leaders or members have been taken not on the grounds of their trade union activities but solely because of their political activities. In order that trade unions may be sheltered from political vicissitudes and in order that they may avoid being dependent on the public authorities, the Committee considers that it is desirable that employers' and workers' organisations, on the one hand, should limit the field of their activities, without prejudice to the freedom of opinion of their members, to the occupational and trade union fields, and that the Government, on the other hand, should refrain from interfering in the operation of trade unions.
38. 1013. In conclusion, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to express the hope that the discussions on the measures necessary to secure a fuller application of the principles of freedom of association which have been taking place between the Venezuelan Government and the national and international trade union organisations concerned will be continued, and, in this connection, to decide to draw the attention of the Government of Venezuela to the desirability of:
    • (i) taking appropriate measures to ensure to employers and workers full freedom to form, within the limits of the law, organisations of their own choosing and to join such organisations ;
    • (ii) re-examining the cases of trade union leaders who are stated still to be in custody under the provisions of emergency legislation, in order to ensure that no person shall, without having had the benefit of the guarantees afforded by normal judicial procedure, be deprived of his freedom because of his membership of a trade union or of his lawful trade union activities ;
    • (iii) re-examining the legal provisions at present in force with respect to employers' and workers' organisations in order to bring them into harmony with the principles laid down in the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 and, in particular, the provisions relating to the cancellation of the registration of trade unions and to the dissolution of trade unions by administrative authority.
      • OBSERVATIONS PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF VENEZUELA ON CERTAIN OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE IN CASE No. 2
    • 24. In a communication dated 9 October 1953 the Government of Venezuela transmitted a study made by the Ministry of Labour containing a comparison between the recommendations put forward by the Committee in subparagraphs (i) and (iii) of paragraph 1013 of its Sixth Report and the legal provisions in force in Venezuela.
39. 25. With reference to the first recommendation concerning the desirability of taking appropriate measures to ensure to employers and workers full freedom to form, within the limits of the law, organisations of their own choosing and to join such organisations, the Government cites article 165 of its Labour Law, which accords the right to form industrial associations to persons of either sex in the same undertaking or in the same trade or occupation or in similar or related trades or occupations whether of an intellectual or manual character. Article 167 provides that industrial associations may be composed of employers, salaried employees or wage-earning employees or both, or persons engaged in liberal professions or independent occupations. Articles 168 and 169 prohibit various acts of interference by the authorities in the operation of trade unions and acts of anti-union discrimination. The Government declares that these provisions not only implement the principles enunciated in the Committee's recommendations but go beyond them, and that the application of the provisions of the Labour Law is effectively ensured by the Ministry of Labour being made responsible for its enforcement and by the labour inspectors being given the duty of seeing that the provisions of the Law are complied with in their areas of jurisdiction.
40. 26. With respect to the recommendation in subparagraph (iii) of paragraph 1013 of the Committee's Sixth Report as to the desirability of the Government re-examining its legislation with a view to bringing it into harmony with the principles laid down in 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), the Government explains the position in Venezuela as follows. With respect to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948, the Government considers that the principle of Article 2 thereof is applied by articles 165, 167, 168 and 169 of the Labour Law referred to above, and that the right of associations to draw up their Constitutions and rules (Article 3 of the Convention) is provided for in articles 174, 176 and 178 of the Labour Law, the duty of the labour inspectors to examine the Constitution and rules of an association being intended solely to verify the lawfulness of the organisation's Constitution, in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention and, therefore, being calculated to protect and not to impair the guarantees of freedom of association. The right to form federations and Confederations (Article 5 of the Convention) is embodied in article 188 of the Labour Law and regulated in detail in articles 189 and 190.
41. 27. Trade unions are prohibited from federating with political associations or parties affiliated thereto. Under article 201 of the Law, the Federal Government shall lay down rules to govern all matters connected with employers' or employees' Conventions or congresses.
42. 28. The definition of " organisations " as organisations for furthering or defending the interest of workers or employers (Article 10 of the Convention) is met by the definition of the objects of industrial associations contained in article 166 of the Law, while the undertaking to ensure that the right to organise is freely exercised (Article 11 of the Convention) is implemented by the provisions in Venezuelan law making the labour authorities responsible for ensuring compliance with legal provisions. The principle of industrial associations not being liable to administrative dissolution or suspension (Article 4 of the Convention) is applied, in the Government's view, by the fact that when dissolution occurs as an exceptional measure by order of the administrative authorities, the trade unions have a right of appeal to the Federal Chamber of the Court of Appeal.
43. 29. Finally, the provision in Article 9 of the Convention concerning its application to the armed forces and police is in accordance with the provision in the Labour Law (article 6) excluding from its application members of the armed forces and officials and salaried employees in public service.
44. 30. With respect to the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Government relates its commentary to the principles as to the protection of workers against anti-union discrimination (Article 1), the protection of workers' and employers' organisations against acts of interference by each other or each other's agents or members (Article 2), the establishment of machinery to ensure respect for the right to organise (Article 3), and the taking of measures, where necessary, to encourage and promote the development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation. With these provisions the Government compares a number of provisions in the Venezuelan Labour Law which prohibit acts of interference with the operation of trade unions and the exercise of the right to organise (articles 168 and 169) ; article 170 lays down, among other things, that the aims of industrial associations shall be to conclude collective agreements and to uphold their members' rights under such agreements and to represent their members in labour negotiation, conciliation and arbitration. Article 198 affords protection against dismissal or prejudice to the intending founders of trade unions and members of trade union executive committees except in cases where the labour inspector decides, on the evidence, that a particular dismissal is reasonable. Article 45 obliges an employer whose employees are organised to conclude a collective agreement if requested by the workers concerned. Finally, the Government refers to the provisions in articles 47 and 48 ensuring the continuity of application of a collective agreement if an employer ceases to be affiliated to the contracting employers' association or if a contracting union or group of employees is dissolved. The Government claims that these provisions in the Labour Law embody and even go beyond the corresponding provisions contained in the said Convention.
45. 31. At its Seventh Session (November 1953) the Committee examined the observations presented by the Government of Venezuela and considered that they did not contain any elements which should cause it to modify the conclusions formulated in its Sixth Report (paragraphs 1012 and 1013). Whereas the partial observations presented by the Government of Venezuela consisted in the main of a comparative analysis of the provisions of international Conventions relating to freedom of association and the Venezuelan legal system, the conclusions of the Committee in its Sixth Report related exclusively to a situation of fact in respect of which no new elements of information had been presented by the Government of Venezuela.
46. 32. Having regard to these considerations, the Committee, while thanking the Government of Venezuela for its observations, considers that they do not call for any modification of the conclusions formulated in paragraph 1013 of its Sixth Report.
    • FURTHER COMPLAINTS PRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF FREE TRADE UNIONS, THE INTER-AMERICAN REGIONAL ORGANISATION OF WORKERS, THE WORLD FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS, THE PERUVIAN PETROLEUM WORKERS' FEDERATION, THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION (SAN FRANCISCO), THE TRADE UNION INTERNATIONAL OF WORKERS IN THE CHEMICALS PETROLEUM AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES AND THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CHRISTIAN TRADE UNIONS
47. 33. Subsequent to the adoption of its Sixth Report the Committee received a number of complaints of violations of trade union rights in Venezuela with respect to which it has not had the opportunity of reporting to the Governing Body. The first, dated 12 December 1952, was presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and transmitted by him to the I.L.O. The second, dated 28 April 1953, was presented directly to the I.L.O by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers. The third, dated 20 March 1954, was presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and transmitted by him to the I.L.O. The fourth, dated 2 October 1954, was presented directly to the I.L.O by the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation. The fifth, dated 15 November 1954, was presented to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (San Francisco) and referred by him to the I.L.O. The sixth, dated 12 January 1955, was presented directly to the I.L.O by the Trade Union International of Workers in the Chemical, Petroleum and Allied Industries. Finally, the seventh, dated 2 June 1955, was presented directly to the I.L.O by the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions. These complaints are analysed separately in the following pages.
    • Complaint of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (Communication dated 12 December 1952)
    • Analysis of the Complaint
48. 34. In its complaint, the I.C.F.T.U, after referring to the Venezuelan general elections in 1952, stated that the people of Venezuela " has courageously affirmed its existence in spite of the suppression of the rights of the workers and of freedom of association.". The complainant demanded a thorough investigation into the violations of trade union rights in Venezuela.
49. 35. As the complaint of the I.C.F.T.U contained allegations of a general character similar to those already examined in its Sixth Report, the Committee, at its meeting on 26 June 1953, decided to communicate the complaint to the Venezuelan Government for information, in the light of the recommendations approved by the Governing Body.
    • Analysis of the Reply (Communication dated 9 October 1953)
50. 36. In this communication the Government confirmed the observations which it had made with respect to the Sixth Report of the Committee, and declared, with respect to this complaint and to the complaint presented on 28 April 1953 by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers, that in no case had the activities of legally constituted trade union organisations been restricted ; the Government firmly defended the rights of trade union organisations provided that they acted within the limits of their legally specified duties.
    • Complaints of the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (Communication dated 28 April 1953), the World Federation of Trade Unions (Communication dated 20 March 195) and the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Communication dated 15 November 1954)
    • Analysis of the Complaints
51. 37. On the basis of a letter of protest from Mr. Augusto Malavé Villalba, General Secretary of the Venezuelan Confederation of Workers, which is affiliated to the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (I.R.O.W), the complaint presented by the latter organisation alleged that, in spite of the efforts made by the I.L.O, following repeated complaints, to persuade the Venezuelan Government to fully recognise trade union rights, the Government was still pursuing a policy of repression of trade unions. Hundreds of trade union leaders were still in prison, including, in particular, Mr. Pérez Salinas, the President of the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation. Mr. Ramón Quijada, the General Secretary of the Confederation, responsible for agricultural questions and deputy of Mr. Pérez Salinas, had also been arrested.
52. 38. The complaint presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.) alleged that Mr. Federico Rondón, a member of the Central Committee of the Confederation of Latin American Workers, was arrested on 15 December 1953 on his return from the Third World Trade Union Congress (W.F.T.U.) and subjected to brutal torture. His wife was also arbitrarily imprisoned. The complaint emphasised that no charge had been brought against Mr. Federico Rondón and that he left the country in October 1953 with a regular passport issued by the Government of Venezuela. The complaint also protested against the arrest, on 15 February 1954, of Mr. Rodolfo Quintero, President of the Federation of Workers for the Federal District and the State of Miranda, although no valid charge had been or could be brought against him.
53. 39. The complaint of the W.F.T.U presented a series of allegations concerning measures taken by the authorities against the Union of Petroleum Workers in the Ribas and Zaraza districts. According to the complainant, a collective agreement similar to the one concluded between the main petrol companies and the " Independent Trade Union Movement ", an organisation controlled by the Government, was signed on 24 September 1953 by the Atlantic Refining Company and the executive committee of the above-mentioned union in the presence of the regional delegates of the Ministry of Labour. The signature was ratified in the presence of the civil authorities at Caracas in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code. At that meeting, in accordance with the decisions reached by the Union Assembly held on 21 September 1953, the members of the executive committee lodged a written protest against the conditions under which the agreement had been forced upon them. This protest was made public on 1 October. On the same day, they were imprisoned and the union offices were searched by the police. Six days later some of them were set free and the civil authorities gave them documents stating that they had been held in preventive detention and were not guilty of any crime. The other members of the executive committee (Claudio Chacón, Fernando Bolivar, Ramón Lozada and Carlos Laza) were detained for 27 days, then dismissed from their employment with the consent of the labour inspectorate. Later they were taken to the Guárico State prison. The secretary of the union, Mr. Rafael Castillo, one of the leaders who had been released, was forced to draw up an inventory of the assets of the union and to leave the union under the threat of prosecution. On 23 October the funds and documents of the union were seized by the police ; on 29 October, the labour inspectorate gave the local delegate of the Ministry of Labour a document attesting that, at a meeting held on 23 October, the workers had decided to dissolve the union and hand over all its funds to the independent trade union. In actual fact, declared the complainant, no such meeting ever took place, but the authorities attempted to give some show of legality to the arbitrary dissolution of the union and the transfer of its funds to the Government-controlled trade union by forcing the workers, under threats of imprisonment, to sign the document. The complainant considered that these facts clearly showed that the administrative and police authorities had openly interfered in the functioning of a trade union organisation and had attempted to destroy it. By a letter dated 22 June 1954 the W.F.T.U was informed that, in accordance with the procedure in force, it might furnish further information in substantiation of its complaint within a period of one month. In a letter dated 24 July 1954 the W.F.T.U stated that, in its view, the facts cited in its original complaint convincingly established the infringements of the exercise of trade union rights committed in Venezuela.
54. 40. The complaint presented by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (San Francisco) protested against the arrest, in order to impede their trade union activities, of several Venezuelan trade union leaders and, in particular, Messrs. Jesús Faria, Federico Rondón, Luis Emiro Arrieta and Alicedes Hurtado. On being informed that, according to the procedure in force, it was entitled to present further information within one month, the complaining organisation stated, in a letter dated 7 January 1955, that in its view it was not necessary to furnish proof in support of the facts alleged in the complaint because the Government had not refuted the allegations made against it and because the persons mentioned in the original complaint were still in prison.
    • Analysis of the Government's Replies (Communications dated 9 October 1953, 10 February 1954 and 28 October 1954)
    • Communication dated 9 October 1953
55. 41. In this communication, relating also to the I.C.F.T.U complaint of 12 December 1952 analysed above, the Venezuelan Government presented its observations on the complaint submitted by the I.R.O.W.
56. 42. In no case had workers been the victims of repressive acts on grounds of trade union membership or activities. Workers belonging to trade union organisations sanctioned in the past in accordance with the Labour Law were not subject to disability and many, and in some cases all, of the workers who had belonged to unions dissolved on legal grounds had joined existing trade unions or created new ones. The measures taken by the Government, including measures taken to maintain public order, were based on Constitutional provisions and the Government denied that international organisations were competent to discuss them because such discussion would mean an infringement of the national sovereignty of Venezuela.
    • First request for further information. 43. At its Seventh Session (November 1953), the Committee, while noting with satisfaction the assurances given by the Government in its communication of 9 October 1953 that it had not interfered with the activities of trade union organisations and that the organised workers had not been subjected to repressive measures because of their trade union affiliation, observed that the Government gave no information with reference to the allegation that certain trade union leaders had been arrested. The Committee consequently decided, before examining the case as a whole, to request the Director-General to ask the Venezuelan Government for more detailed information on the imprisonment of the trade union leaders mentioned in the communication of 28 April 1953 from the I.R.O.W. This request was conveyed to the Venezuelan Government by the Director-General in a letter dated 4 December 1953.
    • Communication dated 10 February 1954
57. 44. In this communication the Venezuelan Government referred to its first reply and reaffirmed that not only did it not place any restriction on the activity of legally constituted trade union organisations, but that on the contrary one of the principles of its social policy was to protect the rights of trade unions in so far as they confined their activity to the functions assigned to them by law.
58. 45. In connection with the arrest of Mr. Pérez Salinas and Mr. Ramón Quijada, the Government contended that those persons were no longer trade union leaders. The Venezuelan Workers' Confederation and its affiliated organisations were dissolved by Executive Decree No. 56, dated 25 February 1949, which was subsequently ratified by the National Constituent Assembly of the United States of Venezuela when it approved the reports of the Ministry of Labour. Consequently, a complaint relating to a violation of trade union rights could not be based, according to the Government, on the detention of persons who were no longer trade union leaders. Similarly, Mr. Augusto Malavé Villalba could no longer lay claim to the title of General Secretary of a Confederation which ceased to exist nearly four years before.
59. 46. The Government stated, more specifically, that Mr. Pérez Saunas and Mr. Ramón Quijada were arrested for illegal activities punishable by law, which not only had no connection with trade union activities but were, on the contrary, quite incompatible with such activities. The Government considered that these acts were all the more serious as attempts were made to conceal them under cover of trade union activities and thus to obtain for them the protection given by law to these activities.
60. 47. The Government concluded by emphasising that, under the powers granted to it by the Constitution, it alone was entitled to decide the course of action to be followed in relation to the persons in question and reaffirmed that the measures taken to maintain public order were not matters which could be discussed by international organisations because " to accept such a course would mean an infringement of the principles of national sovereignty ".
    • Second request for further information. 48. At its Eighth Session (March 1954) and at its Ninth Session (May 1954), the Committee decided to adjourn its examination of the above complaints in the hope of receiving certain further information from the Government of Venezuela on the I.R.O.W complaint and observations on the complaint of the W.F.T.U, dated 20 March 1954, communicated to the Government by a letter dated 22 July 1954.
    • Communication dated 28 October 1954
61. 49. In this communication the Venezuelan Government presented further observations concerning the complaint of the W.F.T.U and the further information requested by the Committee with reference to the complaint of the I.R.O.W.
62. 50. With reference to the allegations of the W.F.T.U relating to the arrest of Mr. Federico Rondón and Mr. Rodolfo Quintero, the Government declared that, although these two persons were known to be Communist leaders and although the Communist Party was dissolved by Decree No. 480 of 13 May 1950, they continued, while occupying their positions as trade unionists, to enjoy the rights which labour legislation and the authorities accorded to all workers in Venezuela. The facts which occasioned the measures taken with respect to these two persons had no relation whatever with their status as trade unionists, and the Government repeated its earlier statement to the effect that the measures which it took to protect social tranquillity and the security of the State in the exercise of its Constitutional powers could not be the subject of discussion by any international organ.
63. 51. With regard to the allegation of the W.F.T.U relating to the dissolution of the trade union of petroleum workers of the district of Ribas and Zaraza and the detention of the members of its executive committee, the Government declared that the situation of this trade union was carefully examined by the competent officials of the Ministry of Labour and its registration was cancelled because it did not fulfil the requirements laid down in article 191 of the Labour Law, which provides that trade unions shall not continue to exist if they do not have the number of members required under article 171 of the same Law. Everything done with respect to the cancellation of the registration of the trade union concerned, including the disposal to be made of its funds and property, was carried out in accordance with the provisions of labour legislation and is shown in the relevant records, in accordance with the communication dated 25 October 1953 addressed to the Labour Inspector of the State of Guárico by the members of the Winding-Up Committee, Messrs. Gabriel Ramirez, Finance Secretary of the trade union concerned, Rafael Castillo, Secretary, and Luis Pedro Alvarez. The assembly which decided on the winding-up of the trade union and the appointment of the above-mentioned Winding-Up Committee was held at Tucupido, capital of the district of Ribas, on 23 October 1953, according to the record drawn up on that occasion. On 24 October 1953, the Winding-Up Committee agreed to transfer the remaining property to the trade union of employees and workers of the petroleum industry and related industries of the State of Guárico, in pursuance of the decision of the above-mentioned assembly, since the majority of the workers belonging to the trade union that was being wound up had joined this union. Only obligations contracted by the trade union were deducted from the funds remaining, including the advance granted by the Executive Committee with respect to the travel expenses to Vienna in October 1953 of Mr. Luis A. Sánchez, General Secretary of the trade union, who attended the Third Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions. The Government observed that the trade union of petroleum workers of the districts of Ribas and Zaraza of the State of Guárico could not legally continue in existence since it had decided upon its liquidation. This was the decision of the plenary assembly which was held normally on the date mentioned above. Moreover, the workers who composed the trade union that was being wound up became members of other trade union organisations. The Government added that the documents to which reference was made were at the disposal of the Committee.
64. 52. With regard to the request for further information with reference to the complaint presented by the I.R.O.W, the Government declared that it had already furnished its observations and had no further information to offer.
    • Complaints of the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation (Communication dated 5 November 1954) and the Trade Union International of Workers in the Chemical, Petroleum and Allied Industries (Communication dated 12 January 1955)
    • Analysis of the Complaints
65. 53. The complaint of the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation, based also on a communication from the Venezuelan Confederation of Labour in exile, contained a request to the I.L.O, prior to any inquiry which might appear appropriate, to make representations to the Government of Venezuela to secure the re-establishment of freedom of association, so that the Fifth Session of the Petroleum Committee, due to be held in Caracas in the summer of 1955, might take place in an atmosphere of freedom.
66. 54. The complaint of the Trade Union International of Workers in the Chemical, Petroleum and Allied Industries, also presented very shortly before the pending meeting in Caracas of the Petroleum Committee, contained allegations of a general nature relating to violations of freedom of association in Venezuela and asked for measures to be taken to secure the liberation of imprisoned trade unionists, the closing of concentration camps, respect for freedom of association and the ending of violent police action and of governmental interference with the functioning of trade unions.
67. 55. The complaint of the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation was communicated to the Government of Venezuela on 2 December 1954. The complaining organisation was informed on 5 November 1954 of its right to present further information, but did not avail itself of this right. With regard to the complaint of 12 January 1955 from the Trade Union International of Workers in the Chemical, Petroleum and Allied Industries, the Committee decided, at its 12th Session (May 1955), not to transmit this complaint to the Government of Venezuela because it did not contain any specific new allegations not already contained in complaints transmitted previously.
68. 56. The Government of Venezuela has not presented any observations on the complaint of the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation.
    • Complaint of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (Communications dated 2 June 1955 and 29 September 1955)
    • Analysis of the Complaint
69. 57. In its communication dated 2 June 1955 the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions stated that its executive committee had decided to regard the communication dated 25 April 1955 from the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions as a complaint alleging violation of trade union rights presented to the I.L.O in its name. In this communication, the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions alleges a number of events " which amount to flagrant and intolerable persecution of the free trade union movement completely at variance with the undertaking to preserve liberty given by Venezuela ". The General Secretary of C.O.F.E.T.R.O.V (Committee for the Federation of the Organised Workers of Venezuela), Mr. Elio Aponte, is alleged to have been arrested on his return to Venezuela after the First Congress of the Latin American Christian Trade Union Movement, held in Santiago in 1955. On 9 February 1955 the leaders of the Christian Oilworkers' Union (S.T.O.P) at Cabimas (Zulia State) were summoned by the local Labour Commissioner. This official demanded to see the account books and invited the members of the union executive to join the trade unions of the Independent Trade Union Movement, affiliated to the government-sponsored National Workers' Confederation. They did not accept this invitation, which would have implied the loss of the independence of the trade union, and the same day the trade union premises were invaded by persons who were not members of the union and who were led by leaders of the Independent Trade Union Movement. The Labour Commissioner, who was also present, stated that the fusion of the two organisations should take place at once. Mr. César Vergel Lozano, a representative of C.O.F.E.T.R.O.V, refused to accept this arbitrary command ; the premises were then occupied by force and all the goods and property of the union, including a considerable quantity of cash, were confiscated.
70. 58. The following day, representatives of the Independent Trade Union Movement took similar action against the Union of Organised Oilworkers (U.T.O.P) of Bachaquero (Zulia State), also a Christian trade union. The property of this union was transferred to the local police station. The Oilworkers' Union (S.T.O.P), in the Simón Rodriguez district of Anzoátegui State, another affiliate of C.O.F.E.T.R.O.V, was also subjected to action of a similar kind, and Mr. Francisco Fernández, a representative of C.O.F.E.T.R.O.V, and its executive committee were detained. The Oilworkers' Union (S.T.O.P) of the Sotillo district of Anzoátegui State is alleged to have been treated in the same way.
71. 59. In the name of the Independent Petroleum Workers' Union, an affiliate of the Independent Trade Union Movement, threats were publicly made on 15 February 1955 against the S.T.O.P Oilworkers' Union branches in Carirubana, Los Taques and Punto Cardón, in the Falcón district of Falcón State. These threats have been carried out, various leaders of these trade unions having been attacked.
72. 60. C.O.F.E.T.R.O.V lodged a complaint (without any result) with the Minister of Labour against these attacks, because it is alleged that officials of the Ministry of Labour in the different localities had helped the persons concerned in making the attacks.
73. 61. The International Federation of Christian Trade Unions was informed of its right to furnish further information and did so by a communication dated 29 September 1955. By the same communication it transmitted photo-copies of documents emanating from the Direction of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Labour of Venezuela and from the National Executive Committee of the Independent Trade Union Movement. The first document states that Mr. Temilio A. Chirinos " carries out special missions in relation to trade union matters on the orders of the Ministry of Labour ". The second document states that the same person is authorised to represent the executive committee of the Independent Trade Union Movement in all the transactions which it may be required to perform before the civil and military authorities of the State. In the complaint in question it is specifically stated that elements of the Independent Trade Union Movement, commissioned for this purpose by the Department, have exercised repression against Christian trade union organisations. In the opinion of the complainant, the documents presented prove that the Ministry of Labour has entrusted " special missions in trade union affairs " to persons acting as officers of the Independent Trade Union Movement. This implies, the complainant continues, a clear intervention by the Government in trade union affairs and demonstrates the collaboration existing between the Government and the Independent Trade Union Movement.
74. 62. The communications from the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions were transmitted to the Government of Venezuela by a communication dated 24 November 1955. So far, the Government of Venezuela has not transmitted any observations on this complaint.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

• Preliminary Question concerning the Withdrawal of Venezuela from the International Labour Organisation
  63. 63 In view of the notice given by the Government of Venezuela on 2 May 1955 of its intention of withdrawing from the International Labour Organisation, the Committee has examined as a preliminary question the possible effect of notice of withdrawal from the I.L.O by a member State on the applicability of the procedure for the examination of complaints. At its 12th Session (Geneva, May-June 1955), the Committee took the view that no question arises in regard to its competence to continue its examination of complaints presented before the date on which the member State gave its notice of withdrawal during the two years prior to the notice taking effect in accordance with article 1 (5) of the Constitution of the I.L.O. Only in the event of the examination of such complaints not having been concluded at the expiration of the period of notice would it be necessary to consider the effect of such expiration on any proceedings still pending at the time. The Committee has, accordingly, continued its examination of the case in accordance with the ordinary procedure.
  64. 64 The allegations contained in the complaints analysed above fail under two heads:
      • (a) one series of allegations contained in the complaints presented by the World Federation of Trade Unions and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions, in particular, relate to the cancellation of the registration of trade unions and to restrictions being placed on the free functioning of trade union organisations ;
      • (b) the second series of allegations, contained in the complaints presented by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the International Longshoremen's, and Warehousemen's Union and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions, relate to the arrest of certain trade union leaders.
  65. 65 All these complaints, like those presented by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation, the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and the Trade Union International of Workers in Chemical, Petroleum and Allied Industries, also relate, in general terms, to the trade union situation existing in Venezuela.
• Allegations relating to the Cancellation of the Registration of the Union of Petroleum Workers of the Districts of Ribas and Zaraza
  66. 66 In its letter dated 28 October 1954 the Government stated that the trade union in question had its registration cancelled because it no longer complied with articles 171 and 191 of the Labour Law. These articles read as follows:
• Article 171. Industrial associations of employers shall not be formed with fewer than three members, or industrial associations of employees with fewer than 20 members, where associations in undertakings are concerned, or with fewer than 40 in the case of occupational associations or associations of persons engaged in the liberal professions or independent occupations.
• Article 191. No industrial association shall continue to exist without the number of members prescribed in article 171 of this Law for its Constitution.
  67. 67 In a number of previous cases the Committee has recognised that it is a common practice for States to provide in their legislation such formalities as seem to them proper to ensure the normal functioning of trade unions and has considered that, in particular, when the conditions attached to the registration of a trade union are purely formal, they should not be interpreted as infringing the freedom of the workers.
  68. 68 In the present case the Committee considers that a provision which obliges a trade union to wind itself up if its membership falls below 20 or 40, depending on whether it is an undertaking union or an occupational union, does not in itself constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights, provided that such winding-up is attended by all necessary legal guarantees to avoid any possibility of an abusive interpretation of the provision, namely the right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal (article 193 of the Labour Law).
  69. 69 In this connection, the complainant (W.F.T.U.) alleges that the reason for the cancellation of the registration of the trade union in question was the fact that the members of its executive committee made public a protest which they had lodged, when signing a collective agreement concluded between the union and the Atlantic Refining Co., with regard to the conditions under which this agreement had been imposed on them, and that the dissolution of the union was accompanied by a number of measures demonstrating clearly the flagrant interference of administrative and police authorities in the functioning of a trade union organisation and their attempt to destroy it : more or less prolonged periods of imprisonment of several members of the executive committee, followed by their dismissal and expulsion, searches of the union's premises by the police, seizure of funds and documents, obtaining the signatures of the workers by force to legalise the arbitrary liquidation of the union, etc.
  70. 70 On this point the Government replied that the dissolution of the union, which could not continue to exist by virtue of article 191 of the Labour Law, took place under normal conditions and in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Law. As is shown by the record which was drawn up a general assembly of the union was held on 23 October 1953 at Tucupido, which decided to wind up the union, appointed a winding-up committee and agreed to transfer the existing funds to the trade unions of employees and workers of the petroleum industry of the State of Guárico because the majority of the workers belonging to the union which was being wound up had joined that union. The transfer of the union funds was effected normally, after deduction of the advance granted by the executive committee towards the travelling expenses to Vienna, in October 1953, of Mr. Luis A. Sánchez, General Secretary of the Union, who attended the Third Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions. The Government made no reference to the arrest of certain members of the executive committee of the dissolved union.
  71. 71 Further, in its communication of 9 October 1953, the Government, when presenting certain observations on the complaint of the I.C.F.T.U, which had been transmitted to it for information, stated that, in those cases in which it had been necessary to apply to particular trade union organisations sanctions prescribed by the Labour Law, as for instance those applied pursuant to article 191, it had placed no obstacle in the way of members of the dissolved organisations continuing to act in the trade union field or creating new trade union organisations or joining existing ones.
  72. 72 With respect to this allegation the Committee considers that it cannot express a view with regard to the factual circumstances which led to the dissolution of the union, because the allegations of the complainants, with respect to the motives of the dissolution, are completely at variance with the Government's version. Having regard to this situation and subject to the reservation that, as the Government has declared on repeated occasions, the members of the dissolved organisations can create new organisations or join existing ones-as would appear to have been the case-the Committee, without in any way prejudging the factual circumstances which may have attended the dissolution of the trade union in question and, especially, without prejudging the allegations relating to the arrest of certain members of the executive committee-allegations which are considered below-and confining itself therefore to the juridical aspect of the dissolution of this trade union, considers that it is not in a position to examine further the allegation relating to the cancellation of the registration of the Union of Petroleum Workers of the districts of Ribas and Zaraza pursuant to a provision of Venezuelan law not in itself constituting a restriction on the exercise of trade union rights.
• Allegations relating to the Arrest of Certain Trade Union Leaders
  73. 73 The persons referred to in the complaints of the I.R.O.W and W.F.T.U as having been arrested because of their trade union activities are the following Messrs. Pérez Salinas, former President of the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation, and Ramón Quijada, Secretary of that organisation, Federico Rondón, a member of the Central Committee of the Confederation of Latin American Workers and Rodolfo Quintero, President of the Federation of Workers for the Federal District and the State of Miranda. Several members of the executive committee of the Union of Petroleum Workers of the districts of Ribas and Zaraza, Messrs. Claudio Chacón, Fernando Bolivar, Ramón Lozada, Carlos Lasa, Rafael Castillo, Raúl Rafael Soto and Gabriel Ramirez, are also alleged to have been arrested. Some of them are stated to have been set free subsequently but to have been expelled from the State.
  74. 74 In its letter dated 10 February 1954, the Government denied that Mr. Pérez Salinas and Mr. Quijada, and also Mr. Augusto Malavé Villalba, General Secretary of the Venezuelan Confederation of Workers in Exile, were trade union leaders competent to present a complaint, on the ground that the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation and its affiliated federations and unions, in which those persons had held office, having been dissolved, they had ceased to be trade union officers.
• Preliminary Question as to the Receivability of the Complaint of the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation Transmitted by the I.R.O.W.
  75. 75 At its Ninth Session (May 1954) the Committee considered the two preliminary questions raised by the Venezuelan Government in its communication dated 10 February 1954. The first concerns the receivability of the complaint of the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation transmitted to the I.L.O by the I.R.O.W.
  76. 76 The Committee noted that in its First Report (February 1952) it had examined the question whether a complaint would be considered as having been submitted by a workers' organisation when a government states that the persons claiming to act on behalf of that organisation are not entitled to do so because the organisation in question has been dissolved. The Committee had then considered that to admit that the dissolution of an organisation by governmental action abolished the right of the organisation concerned to invoke the procedure for the examination of complaints relating to alleged infringements of trade union rights would be to run counter to the purpose for which that procedure was devised. In the light of the conclusions unanimously approved by the Governing Body in 1937 in connection with a complaint submitted by the Labour Party of Mauritius against the Government of the United Kingdom, in accordance with article 23 of the I.L.O Constitution (now article 24), the Committee had decided that it would not consider a complaint to be irreceivable merely because the Government concerned had dissolved the organisation in the name of which the complaint had been submitted. This principle is expressed in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Committee's First Report and has since been applied in Case No. 55 (Greece), in which the Committee declared that it possesses full freedom to decide whether an organisation may be deemed to be an employers' or workers' organisation within the meaning of the I.L.O. Constitution and would not consider itself bound by any national definition of the term.
  77. 77 Furthermore, in the present case, the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers, whose capacity to present the complaint has not been questioned, endorsed the letter of protest sent to it by Mr. Augusto Malavé Villalba, the General Secretary of the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation, and thus took up the complaint of its own accord and presented it directly. The Committee noted that in Case No. 3 (Dominican Republic), it declared to be receivable a complaint presented by four Dominican persons in exile after noting that, whether the objections raised against the qualifications of these persons were justified or not, the complaint not only had been transmitted but had been formally taken over by an international trade union organisation-in the case in question, the Inter-American Confederation of Workers. Moreover, in Case No. 78 (Switzerland), the Government having declared that the fact that a complaint had been presented by an organisation which had no branch in Switzerland might have constituted a sufficient reason for the Government not to reply to the complaint, the Committee took the view that, while this fact was a point to which it should pay particular attention when it came to examine the merits of the complaint, for the simple reason that it might be difficult to decide in some cases how much reliance could be placed on the evidence of persons not resident in the country concerned, this factor should not be taken into account when deciding as to the receivability of the complaint, as circumstances might arise in which only persons residing outside the country complained against enjoy the conditions of freedom necessary to enable them to submit for the consideration of the Committee a case involving violations of freedom of association. Having observed, in the case in question, that the complaint had been presented in the prescribed form by an international trade union organisation, the Committee declared it to be receivable.
  78. 78 Having regard to the principles and practice referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the Committee considers, as it did in the earlier cases referred to above that the arguments presented by the Government of Venezuela do not provide a sufficient reason for it to declare that the complaint is not receivable, as it has been presented in the prescribed form by an international trade union organisation competent to present it.
• Preliminary Question as to the " Trade Unionist " Status of the Persons Whose Arrest is Alleged
  79. 79 The Government also maintained in its communication of 10 February 1954 that Messrs. Pérez Salinas and Ramón Quijada, whose arrest is alleged in the complaint of the I.R.O.W, are no longer trade union leaders and consequently cannot agree to the presentation of a complaint of alleged violation of trade union rights based on the arrest of persons who have ceased to be trade unionists.
  80. 80 In the present case the fact that neither of the two persons in question now performs trade union functions is due to the Venezuelan Workers' Confederation, of which they were officers, having been dissolved by the Venezuelan Government.
  81. 81 In Case No. 65 (Cuba), the Government also denied the right of the persons referred to in the complaint to be regarded as trade unionists, stating that these persons had been eliminated from the trade union movement by the workers themselves. The Committee, while bearing in mind that the fact-finding and conciliation procedure on questions of freedom of association can by definition be applied only to organised workers or employers, and while admitting that a worker or employer may lose his status as a member of a union or association, nevertheless considered that it could not refrain from examining a complaint presented by an international trade union organisation competent to present it merely because the persons concerned had ceased to be members or officers of a national trade union.
  82. 82 In the present case the Committee reaffirms the view which it expressed at its Ninth Session (May 1954) that it cannot refrain from examining the complaints submitted to it merely by reason of the fact that the persons concerned no longer perform the duties of trade union officers, in view of the fact that the reason for which they no longer perform such duties appears to be that their continued holding of such offices has been prohibited by a governmental measure dissolving the trade union organisation to which they belonged. This question, moreover, does not arise with regard to most of the trade unionists under arrest.
  83. 83 Having disposed of these two preliminary questions, the Committee now proceeds to examine in substance the various allegations relating to the arrests of trade unionists. With regard to the arrest of Mr. Pérez Salinas and Mr. Ramón Quijada, the Venezuelan Government stated in its letter dated 9 October 1953 that freedom of association is fully guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of existing legislation, and that in no case have workers been subjected to repression because of their union affiliations. In addition, it pointed out that the National Constituent Assembly, by adopting the third transitional provision of the Constitution of 11 April 1953, approved the measures which the Government has taken or might take in the future to safeguard social peace and maintain public order.
  84. 84 This provision of the Venezuelan Constitution reads as follows:
• Pending the legislative measures provided for in the chapter of the Constitution relating to guarantees to the individual, the measures taken in this field by the provisional Government shall remain in force. The President of the Republic is authorised to take all measures he considers suitable to ensure the security of the nation, to safeguard social peace and maintain public order.
  85. 85 The Government therefore considered that the measures it had taken, under the powers conferred on it by the national Constitution, to maintain public order were purely a question of national jurisdiction and that consequently international organisations were not competent to discuss them.
  86. 86 This reply, repeated in subsequent communications, seems to suggest that the Venezuelan Government considers that the alleged arrests of trade union leaders form part of the measures which the Government is authorised to take under the third transitional provision of the Constitution and are consequently outside the competence of the Committee.
  87. 87 At its Seventh Session (November 1953), when considering the Government's further observations on this point, the Committee noted that in a number of previous cases it had expressed the view that, although a State has the full sovereign right to take any measures dictated by the need to maintain public order, such measures, nevertheless, should not infringe the exercise of trade union rights. Thus, in Case No. 28 (United Kingdom-Jamaica), the Committee emphasised that measures taken by the authorities to ensure the observance of the law should not result in preventing unions from organising meetings during labour disputes. In Case No. 40 (France-Tunisia), having observed that the measures taken by the authorities, while not directly relating to the exercise of trade union rights, had, nevertheless, had serious repercussions on the trade union situation, the Committee drew the attention of the Government to the desirability of according to the Tunisian trade union movement the greatest possible measure of freedom of action in the occupational sphere compatible with the maintenance of public order. While the Committee also concluded in that case that certain allegations relating to the arrest of militant trade unionists did not call for further examination, this was after having taken note of a detailed statement from the Government giving particulars of the proceedings taken against certain trade union militants which were sufficiently precise and detailed to show that these proceedings in no way related to the exercise of trade union rights but solely to activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature. In Case No. 31 (United Kingdom-Nigeria), in which it took the view that the action of the authorities had not been directed against the exercise of fundamental trade union rights but only to maintain order, and in Case No. 6 (Iran), in which it observed that the proceedings taken against certain trade union leaders were initiated solely with a view to maintaining public order and were not directed against the trade union movement, the Committee reached these conclusions only on the basis of detailed information furnished by the Governments.
  88. 88 When examining the first reply of the Venezuelan Government, dated 9 October 1953, the Committee observed that it contained no precise information with respect to the allegation relating to the arrest of certain trade union leaders, in particular, Mr. Pérez Salinas and Mr. Ramón Quijada. Consequently, the Committee instructed the Director-General to ask the Venezuelan Government for further information on the subject. The Committee's request was conveyed to the Government by a communication dated 4 December 1953.
  89. 89 In its communication dated 10 February 1954, the Venezuelan Government reaffirmed that the imprisonment of Messrs. Pérez Salinas and Ramón Quijada was not a violation of trade union rights. It added that the persons concerned were arrested for illegal activities punishable by Venezuelan law and which not only were not connected with trade union work but were, on the contrary, quite incompatible with such work, and were particularly serious as attempts had been made to carry them on under cover of trade union activity in order to enjoy trade union protection.
  90. 90 At its Ninth Session (May 1954), the Committee noted that the Venezuelan Government, while stating that the acts of which Messrs. Pérez Salinas and Ramón Quijada were accused were punishable under Venezuelan law, did not give any information on the nature of the offences committed or on any legal proceedings taken. In several earlier cases with respect to which legal decisions have been given, the Committee had requested the governments concerned to furnish it with copies of the judgments in question before making its recommendations in such cases. In Case No. 18 (Greece), the Committee, having before it allegations relating to the prosecution and sentencing of trade union leaders, addressed to the Greek Government a request for further information concerning, in particular, the precise nature of the crimes in respect of which proceedings were taken against the persons in question and the judgments given against them. Subsequently, the Committee addressed a further request to the Government expressing its desire to be informed as to the result of the review of the trial of the trade union leaders, which was to take place in accordance with certain clemency measures adopted by the Government. In Case No. 22 (Philippines), in which the Committee took the view that the allegations relating to the arrest of trade union leaders were so purely political in character that it was undesirable to pursue the matter further, it did not reach this conclusion until it had received from the Government, following several requests for supplementary information which had been addressed to it, the text of a decision given by the Court of First Instance of Manila from which it appeared that the judicial proceedings taken against these trade union leaders were taken on the ground of their subversive activities in connection with the armed uprising organised by the Communist Party of the Philippines and the H.M.B. (People's Liberation Army), with a view to the immediate overthrow of the Government by force. In other cases (Case No. 61 (France-Tunisia), and Case No. 69 (France)), the Committee had decided to postpone its examination of the allegations before it until such time as the judgments to be rendered in respect of questions having a direct or indirect connection with the cases with which it was dealing had been communicated to it, because it took the view that these decisions would be likely to be a source of valuable information to it.
  91. 91 Having regard to these considerations, the Committee decided at its Ninth Session (May 1954) that, before it could give a decision on the allegations relating to the arrest of Mr. Pérez Salinas and Mr. Ramón Quijada, it was indispensable for it to obtain from the Government of Venezuela further information concerning the nature of the offences in respect of which they had been detained and any judgments which might have been pronounced with respect thereto.
  92. 92 In its reply dated 28 October 1954 the Government stated that it considered that it had already furnished its observations and, consequently, that it had no further information to present. In the same letter, the Government, although referring to the cancellation of the registration of the Union of Petroleum Workers in the districts of Ribas and Zaraza criticised in the complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions, refrained from replying to the allegation in that complaint to the effect that a number of the members of the Executive Committee of that union had been imprisoned, then dismissed and expelled. On the other hand, in the same letter, the Government referred to the allegation relating to the arrest of Mr. Federico Rondón and Mr. Rodolfo Quintero. It declared that, although these two persons were known to be Communist leaders and although the Communist Party was dissolved by Decree No. 480 of 13 May 1950, they continued, while occupying their positions as trade unionists, to enjoy the rights which labour legislation and the authorities accord to workers in Venezuela. It confirmed that the facts which occasioned the measures taken with respect to these two persons had no relation whatever with their status as trade unionists and repeated that the measures taken by the Government of Venezuela, pursuant to its Constitutional powers, to protect social tranquillity and the security of the State could not be the subject of discussion by an international organ since they derive from its own sovereignty.
  93. 93 The Committee observed that in its First Report it had indicated that, where precise allegations are made, the Committee cannot regard as satisfactory replies from the governments which are confined to generalities. The Committee had pointed out that, in cases in which precise allegations have been made concerning a de facto situation, it cannot be satisfied with replies which simply refer to or recapitulate the applicable legal provisions. The Committee had emphasised that " the purpose of the whole procedure is to promote respect for trade union rights in law and in fact, and the Committee is confident that, if it protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognise the importance for the protection of their own good name of formulating for objective examination detailed factual replies to such detailed factual charges as may be put forward". It is in accordance with this principle that, in all the cases in which the information furnished by a government had appeared to it to be too general in character, the Committee has requested the Government for more detailed information in order to enable it to express a considered view to the Governing Body.
  94. 94 In the present case the Committee had before it, firstly, precise allegations relating to the arrest of certain trade union leaders, which, according to the complainants, was occasioned by the trade union activities of those concerned, and, secondly, statements by the Government to the effect that the measures taken had no connection with the trade union status of those persons but had been occasioned by matters concerning which the Government does not have to furnish information because they did not relate to the exercise of trade union rights.
  95. 95 Subsequently, the Committee, although having received no new information from the Government, heard that some of the trade union leaders mentioned in the complaint of the I.R.O.W, including Mr. Pérez Salinas, former President of the dissolved Venezuelan Confederation of Workers, have been liberated and are now abroad. On the other hand, the Committee has received new complaints -from the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions-in which it is alleged that more trade unionists have been arrested.
  96. 96 Having regard to all the circumstances and although it has had information to the effect that some of the trade union leaders detained have been liberated, the Committee considers that it has received no precise information from the Government as to the fate of the other arrested trade unionists mentioned in the complaints and that, even in the case of those persons now at liberty, such as the former President of the dissolved Venezuelan Confederation of Workers, it cannot consider that there has been a restoration of the free exercise of trade union rights, because they have been forced to leave the country. Consequently, while regretting that the Government of Venezuela has not considered it possible to make available to it information comparable to that which has been supplied by other governments in similar circumstances, the Committee considers that it should maintain the recommendations made in its Sixth Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 121st Session (Geneva, March 1953), in which it decided to draw the attention of the Government of Venezuela to the desirability of " re-examining the cases of trade union leaders who are stated still to be in custody under the provisions of emergency legislation, in order to ensure that no person shall, without having had the benefit of the guarantees afforded by normal judicial procedure, be deprived of his freedom because of his membership of a trade union or of his lawful trade union activities ".
• Complaints on which the Government Has Not Presented Any Observations
  97. 97 The complaint of the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union dated 15 November 1954, which was communicated to the Government on 12 March 1955, alleges that a number of trade union leaders, including Jesús Faria, Luis Emiro Arrieta, Alicedes Hurtado and Federico Rondón (the last-mentioned person also being referred to in the complaint of the W.F.T.U examined above), have been detained for having carried out legitimate trade union activities. So far, the Government has presented no observations on this complaint. As this complaint also relates to the detention of trade unionists, the Committee considers that, in this connection, it should reiterate the conclusions contained in paragraph 96 above.
  98. 98 The complaint of the Peruvian Petroleum Workers' Federation, dated 2 October 1954, demanded the re-establishment of freedom of association in Venezuela, so that the Fifth Session of the Petroleum Committee (Caracas, April-May 1955) might take place in an atmosphere of freedom. Since the Governing Body, at its 129th Session (Geneva, May-June 1955), took note of the report made by its representatives at that meeting the Committee has not considered it appropriate to examine this matter further.
  99. 99 With regard, finally, to the complaint of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions contained in letters dated 2 June and 29 September 1955, communicated to the Government of Venezuela on 24 November 1955, in which the organisation concerned presents various allegations with respect to interference by the authorities in trade union activities, suppression of trade unions and intimidatory measures taken against trade union leaders and members, the Committee has not received any observations from the Government on the basis of which it could examine this complaint.