Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 234, Juin 1984

1. 92. The complaint is contained in a communication of the Unified Workers' Central (CUT) dated 19 January 1983. The CUT sent additional information in a communication of 21 February 1983. The Government replied in a communication of 3 February 1984.
2. 93. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 94. The complainant alleges that, by virtue of resolution No. 13/74, the Secretariat of State for Labour is interfering in the: internal activities of the unions to the advantage of the companies or the Government. A case of this kind has occurred with a view to imposing an "accommodating" executive on the Union of Hotels, Bars and Restaurants in La Romans (SIHOBARES) and the Sindicato de Costasur Dominicana S.A. In both cases, the electoral meetings (held respectively on 28 and 29 December 1982) took place in the presence of contingents of national police who impeded the holding of the elections on trade union premises, which took place within the companies' premises in violation of trade union rules. Section 328 ("All delegates to the general meetings must be members of the association") and section 332 of the Labour Code ("No resolution adopted by the general meeting shall be valid unless the general meeting has been convened in the form and with the notice prescribed in the rules") were also violated. Furthermore, no list was read out with the membership register and one or more of those elected to hold offices in the association were not members. The CUT points out that in the specific case of the elections in SIHOBARES no convening notice:. was issued and voters were prevented from participating on list No. 2.
2. 95. The complainant also alleges that the Secretariat of State for Labour refuses to give legal recognition to the Pan-American Trade Union of Security Guards, and the right to form a trade union is prohibited in the Free Trade Zones in the country.
3. 96. In addition, the complainant alleges the military occupation of the following companies: Fábrica Dominicana de Cemento, Rosario Dominicana, Naco Polyclinic, Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Estatales, Fábrica de Aceites Vegetales Ambar, Hotel Jaragua, and the Guineero La Cruz-Manzanillo Project.
4. 97. Lastly, the complainant indicates that the industrial tribunals have still not been set up despite the fact that they are envisaged in the Labour Code.

B. The Government's reply

1. 98. The Government states that the Pan-American Union of Security Guards was recognised by the Secretariat of State for Labour on 2 February 1983 and that the Free Trade Zones are covered by special laws governing the conditions of their establishment and operations, which include production exclusively for export in order to challenge the existing competition in Latin America and the Caribbean.
2. 99. As regards the Naco Polyclinic, the National Medical Centre and the Hotel Jaragua (which, the complainant had alleged, had been occupied by the military), the Government states that this is not a matter concerning workers and management and even less trade unions. The medical centres referred to were subject to sequestration owing to debts running into millions contracted with the Reserve Bank of the Dominican Republic, which they were unable to settle despite having been given a number of years of grace to facilitate the payments concerned. In the case of the Hotel Jaragua there were flagrant violations of a contract with the Dominican State.
3. 100. The Government further states that the Rosario Dominicans undertaking is not nor ever has been occupied by the military and that at the La Cruz-Manzanillo Project, the presence of police was motivated solely by the setting up of check-points at the various exits to avoid the disappearance of fruit; moreover, as soon as it was able to do so, the undertaking replaced the police with its own employees.
4. 101. With respect to the Fábrica Dominicans de Cemento, the Government explains that measures were taken with a view to re-establishing normal production since, according to a technical study, only 500 workers were required, whereas the undertaking was employing over 1,300 workers and was losing millions annually. In view of this situation, armed groups formed in the undertaking opposing any changes aimed at improving its financial situation.
5. 102. Furthermore, the Government attaches a letter signed by the Secretary-General and the minutes writer of SIHOBARES, in which they indicate that the complainant organisation (the Unified Workers' Central) has no right to contest the elections held at SIHOBARES, and that the exclusion of the elements from list No. 2 in the elections was decided by the Electoral Committee, taking account of the fact' that a number of articles in the electoral regulations of the trade union rules had been infringed. The Government also attaches a letter signed by the management of the company concerned, explaining that the elections held at the Sindicato de Costasur Dominicana S.A., did not take place on premises belonging to the undertaking but at the place indicated by the Electoral Committee, and that the Secretary-General of the CUT seized the membership register of the Costasur Dominicans S.A. trade union to prevent workers from electing the new Executive Committee, because the members of the previous Executive Committee had drawn up a new list of members.
6. 103. Lastly, the Government indicates that it has placed a Bill before the Legislative Chambers, aimed at facilitating the operation of the industrial tribunals envisaged in the Labour Code.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 104. As regards the denial by the authorities of the right to organise to workers in certain undertakings, the Committee notes that the Secretariat of State for Labour recognised the Pan-American Trade Union of Security Guards on 2 February 1983. The Committee nevertheless notes that the Government has not provided detailed information as regards recognition of the right to organise of workers in the Free Trade Zones, stating only that the latter are governed by special laws. In view of the lack of detail provided by the Government on this allegation, the Committee recalls that Convention No. 87 guarantees workers the right to establish organisations of their own choosing (Article 2) and that only the armed forces and the police may be excluded from the right to organise (Article 9, paragraph 1), which means that all the workers in the Free Trade Zones should have the right to establish and join trade union organisations. The Committee draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
2. 105. With respect to the allegation concerning the military occupation of undertakings, the Committee notes that the complainant organisation has not indicated the circumstances in which such military occupation occurred and has at no time stated that such measures were a result of trade union activities or had anti-union aims. In these circumstances, having regard to the explanations provided by the Government which reject the fact that the occasional presence of police in one undertaking or another is linked to trade union activities, the Committee considers that this allegation does not call for further examination.
3. 106. As regards the allegation concerning the intervention of the administrative authorities to impose an "accommodating" executive on SIHOBARES and Sindicato de Costasur Dominicana, the Committee notes that the complainant organisation has not provided any details concerning the nature of the alleged intervention by the administrative authorities, restricting itself to indicating the violation of the legal and statutory norms in the holding of the elections in the trade unions concerned in December 1982. The Committee notes, furthermore, that the version given by the complainant organisation of the above-mentioned trade union elections conflicts on many points with the information contained in the letters and documents communicated by the Government. In these circumstances, the Committee is not in a position to come to any conclusions on the matter and, in particular, to determine whether this is, or is not, a purely inter-union matter. However, the Committee notes that the Government recognises that the industrial tribunals are still not functioning despite the fact that they are envisaged in the Labour Code. Accordingly, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the importance of the availability of legal procedures to the trade union organisations and their members, to which they may have recourse in cases of violation of trade union standards, and expresses the hope that the Bill on industrial tribunals will be adopted in the near future.