Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 207, Mars 1981

1. 54. The Committee examined this case in November 1980, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body.
2. 55. Since its last examination of the case, the Committee has received a communication from the Government dated 2 December 1980 and another dated 13 January 1981.
3. 56. Costa Rica 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 57. The allegations in this case related to the strike held on 19 May 1980 by the workers of Staves, Barrels and Parquet Inc. (STABAPARI), following repeated demands by the complainant organisation for the application of the collective agreement in force and the dismissal of 25 workers without respecting the terms of that agreement. The complainant also referred to the dismissal of another 60 workers on the day after the agreement putting an end to the strike was signed, and to the failure on the part of the Government and the undertaking to observe that agreement.
2. 58. It further referred to alleged acts of physical assault by the undertaking's manager against workers and to alleged antiunion interference by the Ministry of Labour (officials of the Ministry of Labour had called a meeting in order to induce the workers to give up their trade union organisation and appoint in its place a labour relations board).
3. 59. Regarding the pending questions, the Committee recommended to the Governing Body to request the Government for the text of the judgement in the case against the manager of the undertaking and for its observations on the alleged anti-union interference.

B. Government's reply

1. 60. In its communication of 13 January 1981, the Government states that as the Public Prosecutor had considered that there was no proof to support the allegation of assault made by the complainant against the undertaking's manager and in the absence of charges laid against him by the trade union leaders of the complainant organisation or by anyone else - regarding which the Government sends a certification - the criminal courts did not intervene in the matter.
2. 61. In its communications, the Government also states that the alleged anti-union interference referred to by the complainant in its confused communication of 2 August 1980 does not relate to the labour dispute at the STABAPARI undertaking but concerns a dispute at another undertaking, which terminated in an agreement, signed by the trade union representatives among others, agreeing to the establishment of the labour relations board mentioned in the allegations.

C. Committee's conclusions

1. 62. The Committee notes that the complainant organisation did not bring charges before the courts in relation to the alleged intent of the manager of the STABAPARI undertaking to commit physical assault against workers and that the criminal courts did not intervene in the matter as the Public Prosecutor found there to be no proof in this respect.
2. 63. The Committee also notes that the allegations relating to the alleged anti-union interference referred to by the complainant does not relate to the labour dispute at the STABAPARI undertaking but concern another dispute at another undertaking which terminated in an agreement, signed by the trade union representatives and agreeing to the establishment of the labour relations board mentioned in the allegations.