Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 108, 1969

1. 75. The complaint of the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) is contained in a telegram dated 3 September 1968, sent directly to the I.L.O. The complainants were informed that they were entitled to submit further information in support of their complaint, but they have not availed themselves of this opportunity. The complaint was transmitted to the Government, which forwarded its observations thereon in a communication dated 2 October 1968.
2. 76. 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. 77. The complainants allege that on 1 September 1968 soldiers and police of the Dominican Republic prevented a demonstration by the Autonomous Federation of Christian Trade Unions against a wage-freezing law. They allege that several trade union leaders were imprisoned, and they request the I.L.O. to intervene with a view to securing their release.
2. 78. In its observations, after stating that no trade unionist has been imprisoned, the Government indicates that the demonstration referred to by the I.F.C.T.U was in fact forbidden by the police acting on the basis of a decision taken by the State Secretariat for the Interior and the Police, which is empowered by law to grant or refuse authorisation for public demonstrations. The Government states that in the circumstances referred to in the complaint there was every reason to fear that the planned demonstration would degenerate into disorders, the consequences of which it was impossible to foresee. It adds that it was for this reason that the demonstration was not authorised.
3. 79. The Government goes on to say that the austerity legislation designed to freeze wages and so stabilise the balance of payments has recently been amended in a manner favourable to the workers, some of whose claims have been met. Thus, under the amendments made, wage increases have been rendered possible in undertakings, both public and private, which have made profits in the course of the financial year.
4. 80. Finally, the Government states that it views favourably the exercise of trade union rights and the workers' claims to the extent that they are compatible with the national Constitution and legislation.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 81. As regards the banning of the demonstration, the Committee recalls that in the past it has considered that trade union organisations must observe the general provisions relating uniformly to all public meetings. In the same connection, the Committee was also of the opinion that it rests with the Government, which is responsible for the maintenance of public order, to decide in the exercise of its corresponding powers whether meetings, including trade union meetings, may in certain special circumstances endanger public order and security and to take adequate preventive measures.
2. 82. In the present case it seems, firstly, that the demonstration planned was intended as a protest against the Government's economic policy, since it was directed against the austerity legislation to freeze wages, and secondly, and principally, that the reason for the banning of the meeting lay in the authorities' fears that public order might be endangered.
3. 83. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide, in the light of the precedents referred to in paragraph 81 above and for the reasons indicated in paragraph 82, that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
4. 84. As regards the allegation that some trade union leaders had been imprisoned, which the Government formally denies, the Committee observes that although the complainants were accorded the possibility to do so, they did not supply any further information in support of their allegations, such as the names of the persons alleged to have been arrested.