Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 120, 1971

1. 141. The Committee last examined this case at its session in May 1970, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body, which appeared in paragraphs 196 to 213 of its 118th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 180th Session (May-June 1970).
2. 142. Certain questions, however, remain outstanding, notably those concerning the present position of the State Electricity and Telephone Service (UTE) and, in particular, the closing of its premises and the nature of the breaches of discipline which prompted the dismissal of members of the Management Committee of the UTE Employees' Union (AUTE). On these points the Government was requested to supply further information.
3. 143. The Government submitted its further observations on the case in a communication dated 20 August 1970.
4. 144. Uruguay has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 145. In paragraph 213 of its 118th Report, the Committee submitted the following recommendations, which were approved by the Governing Body and transmitted to the Government
2. 213. With regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) as regards the allegations concerning the detention of various trade unionists, to note the information supplied by the Government in its communications of 2 March 1970 and 9 March 1970, according to which all those persons mentioned in the allegations as having been detained have either been released or else were not imprisoned in the first place, and also to note that at present no one is being held under the Emergency Security Measures Decree;
   • (b) as regards the allegations concerning the closing of the premises of the National Labour Congress (CNT) to ask the Government to supply information concerning the present position regarding the CNT and, in particular, to state whether its premises still remain closed and, if so, for what reason;
   • (c) as regards the allegations concerning the taking of anti-union measures against the AUTE:
   • (i) to note the Government's statement contained in its communication of 9 March 1970, according to which the state of normality in labour and trade union matters in the AUTE implies the right of the trade union(s) to carry out under normal conditions all lawful and legitimate activities, including that of negotiating with the management;
   • (ii) to ask the Government, once again, to supply detailed information on the nature of the breaches of discipline which prompted the dismissal of members of the Management Committee of the AUTE;
   • (d) to take note of this interim report on the understanding that the Committee will submit a further report when it has received the further information requested from the Government in subparagraphs (b) and (e) (ii) above.
3. 146. With regard to the Committee's first question, the Government, in its communication of 20 August 1970, states that the premises of the CNT have not been closed, that this organisation is not the object of any police or other measures which would prevent it from functioning normally and that, in consequence, it is carrying on all its activities with complete freedom. With regard to the second question, the Government denies the allegations according to which officials of the UTE had been dismissed for exercising trade union activities or for belonging to the AUTE. According to the Government, the dismissals in question were decided on 10 July 1969 by a resolution of the UTE administration and as a result of the fact that a number of officials had illegally abandoned their work.
4. 147. The Government encloses in its communication of 20 August 1970 a copy of the above-mentioned resolution as well as the text of section 92 of the Staff Regulations of UTE Employees, drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Uruguay.
5. 148. By this resolution some fifty-six officials were dismissed; their names and functions are specified in the text. The resolution also sets forth the considerations which prompted the decision in question. These considerations may be summarised as follows: the strike led to a sudden disruption of the electricity supply, with the result that the lives of the inmates of hospitals and similar establishments were endangered; a public summons was issued on 27 June 1969, in accordance with the provisions of section 92 of the Staff Regulations, calling for a return to work within twenty-four hours; this summons was not followed by the employees in question; section 92, which forbids strikes of UTE employees, provides that those employees who disregard the above-mentioned summons shall be dismissed; moreover, since the strike was held in contravention of the provisions contained in sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 13720 of 16 December 1968, it was clearly illegal; this situation of illegality was rendered more serious by reason of the fact that there was a deliberate disregard of the provisions of the Decree respecting the mobilisation of the personnel of the Administration (No. 293/969) and the Emergency Security Measures Decree (No. 289/969 of 24 June 1969); in all these circumstances and in view of the obvious and compelling needs of the essential, public service managed by the UTE, it was necessary to dismiss the employees concerned in accordance with the provisions of section 92 of the Staff Regulations.
6. 149. The Committee notes that the Government justifies the action taken by the authorities on the grounds that the strike in question was unlawful and that the summons calling for a return to work was disregarded by the employees concerned. The Government bases its position essentially on section 92 of the UTE Staff Regulations, which contains an absolute prohibition on recourse to strike action by UTE officials and on sections 3 and 4 of Act No. 13720 of 16 December 1968. Under section 3 of this Act, a Committee on Productivity, Prices and Incomes is to, inter alia, act as conciliator in labour disputes submitted to it; and no strike or lockout is to be considered lawful if the matter in dispute and the decision to take such action have not been put before it at least seven days before the date fixed for the strike or lockout. According to section 4 of the Act, if the dispute takes place in a public service, the Committee may decide within five days of receiving such notice what essential services have to be maintained; any interruption of the services will render the strike or lockout unlawful.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 150. The Committee has always been guided by the principle that allegations relating to the right to strike are within its competence so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights) In a number of cases, the Committee has observed that, while strikes in essential services may be prohibited, such prohibition is only acceptable where accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the parties concerned can participate at all stages.
2. 151. In the present case, there is an absolute prohibition on recourse to strike action by the employees of an essential service. However, as regards any alternative means that the employees in question might have at their disposal for the settlement of their claims, the information supplied by the Government merely refers to certain provisions of Act No. 13720, which provides for conciliation procedures.