Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 116, 1970

1. 55. In a communication dated 11 December 1969, addressed to the ILO directly, the International Metalworkers' Federation announced that on behalf of its Venezuelan affiliate FETRAMETAL it wished to lodge a complaint against the Government of Venezuela for breach of freedom of association. The Federation alleged that on 10 December 1969, Mr. Mollegas, Chairman, and Mr. Mercano, Secretary of FETRAMETAL, were arrested by government agents and dragged off to an unknown destination, outside the area in which the Orinoco steelworkers' strike was proceeding. Members of FETRAMETAL were, it was said, full of the deepest misgivings concerning the fate of these two men.
2. 56. The Government of Venezuela having been at once acquainted, by telegram, with the contents of this message, it cabled back on 13 December 1969. In this telegram, the Government said that the strike recently declared in the National Steel Company had been entirely illegal, and that thirty-two unions, as well as the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (the leaders of which had condemned the stoppage as illegal) had come out against it. Mr. Mollegas had been detained for reasons which had nothing to do with his trade union activities, and the matter had been referred to the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers after his conduct had been questioned by the workers themselves. Steelworkers, and " others in the steel areas " had condemned the attitude taken up by FETRAMETAL, because industrial plant had been sabotaged and violence used against workers anxious to carry on. The Confederation of Venezuelan Workers had withdrawn the authorisation given to FETRAMETAL to conduct the dispute because of the attitude adopted by Mollegas. As to Mercano, the Government denied that he was in custody.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 57. On 15 December 1969, the complainants wrote to the Director-General in the following terms:
   • Having learnt that Mollegas and Mercano are no longer being held incommunicado, and that negotiations with a view to their release are proceeding in a more normal atmosphere, our affiliate has asked us to withdraw the complaint made against the Government of Venezuela. Immediate economic problems are in process of solution, it appears. A special parliamentary committee has been set up and the causes of the present position in the iron and steel industry are under investigation. This being so, we consider that the interest taken in this matter by international organisations has been instrumental in getting these questions thoroughly investigated, and that there is every reason to hope for a satisfactory outcome. However, it seems to us that at this stage it would be better if the Venezuelans themselves were left to decide what action should be taken.
2. 58. On 22 January 1970 the complainant organisation again wrote to the Director-General to say that the matters which had given rise to the complaint had been settled by a new collective agreement which had the Government's backing. The letter added:
   • However, I wish to thank you, and the ILO, for your speed in cabling the Venezuelan Minister of Labour; such action, quite certainly, played apart in improving the atmosphere and contributed, in particular, to the release of the trade union leaders arrested, besides facilitating a settlement of the strike.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 59. When, in the past, the Committee has found itself faced with a situation of this kind, it has always taken the view that: the desire shown by a complaining organisation to withdraw its complaint, while it constitutes a factor to which the greatest attention must be paid, is not, however, in itself sufficient reason for the Committee to cease automatically to proceed with the examination of the complaint. The Committee has always felt free to evaluate the reasons given to explain the withdrawal of a complaint and to investigate whether these appear sufficiently plausible to lead one to believe that the withdrawal was made in complete independence.
2. 60. In this particular instance, there is no reason to believe that the complainant organisation was not fully independent in deciding to withdraw its complaint. Moreover, as it says itself, the reasons which prompted the complaint no longer obtain, while the labour dispute that had been proceeding has ceased with the conclusion of a new collective agreement.
3. 61. Under cover of a letter, dated 12 February 1970, the Government, referring to the fact that the complainants have dropped their complaint and " with a view to informing the Committee on Freedom of Association of the illegality of the strike and of the lawfulness of the detention of the trade union leaders which had formed the subject-matter of the dispute ", submits the text of a report dealing with certain legal aspects of the dispute together with photostats of numerous articles which have appeared in the press containing views and opinions relating thereto.