Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 95, 1967

1. 259. The complaints are contained in five communications which were sent directly to the I.L.O, namely a telegram from the National Confederation of Free Workers (CONATRAL) dated 17 February 1966, two letters from the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers of the I.C.F.T.U. (O.R.I.T.) dated 18 and 28 February 1966, and a letter from the Independent Union of Labourers dated 30 March 1966. The last-named organisation sent further information regarding its complaint by letter of 2 May 1966.
2. 260. Each of the above communications was transmitted to the Government, which replied in a communication dated 26 October 1966 and received in the Office too late to be examined by the Committee at its meeting in November of that year.
3. 261. The Dominican Republic has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 262. In its telegram dated 17 February 1966 CONATRAL alleged, without giving any particulars, that the rights of the free and democratic trade union organisations in the Dominican Republic were being violated by political mobs with aims foreign to Dominican culture and tradition and that trade unionists had been assassinated. The telegram also says: " our bases are destroyed with impunity, our principles violently strangled; terror, menace and death are methods regularly used to bring about our destruction; political alliances join to eliminate us "; and it alleges the support of 80,000 Dominican workers.
2. 263. In its communication of 18 February 1966, which was corrected by another dated 28 February 1966, O.R.I.T expressed its support for CONATRAL's complaint and stated further that CONATRAL had been " attacked by extremist groups in an effort to impose upon it attitudes or positions " which, in the opinion of O.R.I.T, " will in no way contribute to re-establish the atmosphere of peace and tranquillity so badly needed by the Dominican Republic ". The same extremist groups were said to have " avenged themselves on CONATRAL by means of a bomb attack on its headquarters ". O.R.I.T asked the I.L.O to make representations to the provisional Government informing it of the workers' situation and so to give them the assistance which, according to CONATRAL's complaint, they required.
3. 264. The Independent Union of Labourers, for its part, appended to its communication of 30 March 1966 the text of a letter which, it said, it had sent to the provisional President of the Republic, asking for compensation for the damage suffered by the union during the recent civil war (including the sack of its offices and co-operatives) and subsequently since the provisional Government took office. The union hoped that the I.L.O would " take note of the fact that in this country there is no respect for the most elementary rights of free trade unions and that mobs taking orders from political parties attack ... any person not sharing their ideas". It also asked the I.L.O to send a representative "to see for himself the constant and flagrant violation of all the International Labour Conventions ". On 2 May 1966 the Independent Union of Labourers sent, as additional information, the text of a newspaper article which had appeared at San Juan (Puerto Rico) on 28 March 1966: this reported statements by an " Inter-Union Committee of Dominican Trade Union Leaders in Exile " to the effect that " democratic and anti-communist trade union leaders from Santo Domingo " were arriving daily in Puerto Rico, having - the statement alleged - fled from brutal persecution by the " red mob ", whose activities the provisional Government had not prevented. The union added that both its own General Secretary and other high-level officers of the free and democratic trade union movement were being persecuted and turned out of their employment by the " mobs "; and also that the Sugar Corporation had been handed over to a political party so that only members of the party could obtain employment there.
4. 265. In its reply of 26 October 1966 the Government transcribes the observations of the Ministry of Labour on the request made by the Independent Union of Labourers to the President of the Republic for compensation for damage suffered by the union. According to the Ministry, since many persons had suffered losses owing to the civil war, the provisional Government had established a Commission for War Damage Compensation, which had been carefully examining and assessing all such complaints; the Independent Union of Labourers should therefore send its complaint of damage to the Commission.
5. 266. As regards the alleged constant violation of the International Labour Conventions, the Government states that these allegations are untrue.
6. 267. As regards the allegations concerning the damage suffered by the Independent Union of Labourers, it is difficult to appreciate, on the basis of the information provided by the complainants, to what extent this question is related to the exercise of trade union rights in the precise sense of that term. In any case the Government states that there is a commission specially established to examine all complaints such as that put forward by the Independent Union of Labourers. For the above reasons the Committee considers that these particular allegations do not call for further examination on its part.
7. 268. As for the allegations of violation of the International Labour Conventions, the Committee observes that they are expressed in very general terms and that the complainants do not make any precise statement as to which of the Conventions are at issue. The Government replies that these allegations are unfounded.
8. 269. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the Government has not sent its observations on the following: (a) the assassination of trade unionists, the destruction of trade union " bases " and the other acts of persecution alleged by CONATRAL in its letter of 17 February 1966; (b) the acts of pressure on CONATRAL and the terrorist attack on that organisation's headquarters which are alleged by O.R.I.T in its letter of 18 February 1966; and (c) the circumstances which have obliged many trade union officers to leave the country, the acts of persecution and personal violence against the General Secretary of the Independent Union of Labourers and other officers, and the discrimination in respect of employment alleged to be practised by the Sugar Corporation (matters raised in the letter from the Independent Union of Labourers dated 2 May 1966). Accordingly, before continuing its examination of the case, the Committee considers it necessary to ask the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations, as a matter of urgency, on the allegations with which the present paragraph deals.