Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 199, Mars 1980

1. 163. The complaint of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) appears in a communication of 24 August 1979. The Government replied by a letter of 17 October 1979.
2. 164. 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. 165. WCL states that a "Drivers' Combat Unit", consisting of transport workers, requested the Government to countermand the increase in petrol prices, which rose from $1.25 to $1.85 on 31 July 1979. On 1 August, after all conciliation procedures had been exhausted, a strike was called, paralysing the transport system in the major towns of the country. The strikers were supported, continues the complainant, by thousands of workers at a solidarity demonstration in Santo Domingo, but the police and groups of armed civilians opened fire on the workers, killing 8 persons and injuring 20; 200 persons are said to have been arrested.
2. 166. The Government replies that, owing to the increases in the price of petroleum, which have affected the economies of all non-producer countries, particularly developing countries like the Dominican Republic, it was forced to raise the price of petrol and petroleum derivatives, as has been done in all countries. These price increases were unpopular with the national drivers' organisations, it adds, and provoked reactions which showed little understanding of the economic situation of the country. The Government had nevertheless adopted compensation measures in favour of the drivers, including social security measures, a monthly wage of 100 pesos, and housing plans, etc.
3. 167. The Drivers' Combat Unity Committee, continues the Government, unexpectedly called a strike of public transport workers, demanding that the Government take a series of measures, most of which were unconnected with trade union objectives; on the contrary, they represented the programme of a political party. The Government also states that strikes of this kind are expressly forbidden by sections 370 and 371 of the Labour Code, and that the transport of passengers and goods is regarded as a public service which must remain uninterrupted.
4. 168. At no time, continues the Government, was there a demonstration of the kind described it the complaint, but the strike which had been so unexpectedly called was characterised by organised violence, particularly in Santo Domingo. There were also lightning commando strikes by groups unconnected with the transport sector, who overturned and burned vehicles and disappeared into the suburbs of the towns when the forces of order appeared. It may therefore be presumed, considers the Government, that the protest against the increase in the price of petrol was merely a cover-up for activities to destabilise the present regime and upset the process for granting broad guarantees in the field of human rights.
5. 169. According to the Government, the civilian groups were responsible for the shootings, which resulted in three deaths and a number of injuries; these were, however, isolated incidents in which the forces of order and the public authorities did not participate in any way. The Government suspects that these acts were part of the above-mentioned destabilisation plan. Nobody from the transport sector in general was being held in the prisons of the country, adds the Government, and nobody from the Drivers' Combat Unity Committee; although the forces of order apprehended certain persons as they were committing acts of vandalism, these persons were not connected with any occupational organisation.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 170. The Committee has already pointed out, in examining earlier cases concerning the Dominican Republic, that the right to strike is ore of the essential means by which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests. This consideration applies, however, only in so far as strikes are conducted peaceably, without violence or attacks on persons or property and, above all, without degenerating into riots. In the present case, the strike was accompanied by serious incidents, ending in the deaths of a number of persons. According to the Government, groups of civilians were responsible for the killings. The Committee can only express its concern at these incidents. In many cases involving the loss of lives of trade unionists the Committee has stressed the reed to carry out a full and impartial inquiry in order to elucidate the facts and determine responsibilities. In the present case, however, no details have been supplied of the identity or the trade union membership of the victims.
2. 171. The Committee also notes the Government's statement that no transport worker, in particular no member of the Drivers' Combat Unity Committee or an occupational organisation, was among the persons apprehended while committing acts of vandalism.
3. 172. Finally, the Committee notes that section 371 of the Labour Code includes transport among the sectors in which strikes are forbidden. In the cases relating to the Dominican Republic mentioned earlier, the Committee stressed that restrictions or prohibitions on the right to strike were compatible with the principles of freedom of association only under certain conditions (in particular the existence of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures) and provided that the services were essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee considers that transport does not generally fall within this category, namely services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population.