Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 238, Mars 1985

1. 106. The complaint is contained in a communication from the World Federation of Trade Unions dated 20 April 1984. The Government replied in a communication of 7 November 1984.
2. 107. Chile has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 108. The complainant alleges that the Chilean regime declared a state of emergency on 24 March 1984, a few days before the massive mobilisation of the people which had been called by the National Command of Workers in the form of a national day of protest which was held on Tuesday, 27 March, and the meeting of a National Assembly of Leaders of first-level trade unions on Saturday, 14 April, which was to fix a date for a national strike.
2. 109. The complainant alleges that, as a preventive measure, their comrades Benedicto Altamirano Flores, Pedro Ahumada Pizarro, Mauricio Arriagada Figuroa, Luis Gatica Hernández, Macimiliano Guriérrez Ponce, José Rodríguez Vidal, Javier Zúñiga Seguel, Mauricio Candia Yáñez, Pablo Candia Yáñez, Pedro Gutiérrez Reyes, Gustavo Meneses Seguel, José Rivera Carrión, Javier Rodréguez Irabuco, Alejo Catril and Dimas Galaz Segovia were arrested by the security services on Friday, 23 March, at 12.30 a.m. and banished on Thursday, 29 March, having been accused by the Ministry of the Interior of participating in the protest of 27 March.
3. 110. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that, since 24 March 1984, the security services have been looking for José Figueroa, head of the International Relations Department of the National Federation of Workers of the Building, Timber, Building Materials and Related Activities, who has been obliged to go into hiding. Other trade union leaders are in a similar situation.

B. The Government's reply

1. 111. The Government states that in pursuance of Extraordinary Decree No. 4514 dated 29 March 1984 of the Ministry of the Interior, the persons mentioned by the complainant were banished for 90 days to various regions in the northern zone of the country. The measure was made in pursuance of the extraordinary powers granted under Article 24 (transitory provision) of the Political Constitution of the Republic in the event of a disturbance of the public order and peace. The Government adds that under Extraordinary Decrees Nos. 4566 dated 18 April 1984, 4571 dated 24 April 1984 and 4615 dated 31 May 1984, the measures which had been imposed on Messrs. Mauricio Candia Yáñez, Pablo Candia Yáñez, Alejo Catril Licanqueo and Dimas Galaz Segovia were lifted before the end of 90 days. As regards the other persons concerned, the period of 90 days has long since elapsed and they are now once again in full possession of their freedom of movement.
2. 112. The Government also states that the measure adopted was not designed to restrict freedom of association and was in no way related to trade union activities.
3. 113. Finally, as regards the clandestine activities allegedly pursued by Mr. José Figueroa, the Government states that it has no information on this matter precisely because of the clandestine nature of these activities.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 114. As regards the alleged detention and subsequent banishment of 15 persons, the Committee observes that, according to the complainant, these persons were temporarily arrested as a preventive measure on 23 March 1984 and were subsequently banished (29 March) having been accused of participating in the national day of protest held on 27 March 1984. The Government, however, makes no reference to the arrest and points out that the measure of banishment to various regions in the north of the country (under a Decree dated 29 March 1984) was based on Article 24 (transitional provision) of the Constitution following the disturbance of public order and peace and was in no way related to trade union activities.
2. 115. In this respect, the Committee notes that the complainant has given no details concerning the nature and purpose of the national day of protest of 27 March 1984 called by the National Command of Workers or concerning the manner in which the 15 banished persons participated in the protest (in particular, whether they acted peacefully or not). It also observes that the complainant, in its reference to these persons, does not use the term trade union leader or trade unionist but "comrades". It must nevertheless regret the fact that the Government has not indicated the specific acts which led to the banishment of these persons and that it has simply confined itself to stating generally that this measure was in no way related to trade union activities and that it was taken because of a disturbance of public order and peace.
3. 116. In these circumstances, in the absence of any detailed information from the complainant and the Government as to the circumstances which resulted in 15 persons being banished, and having regard to the fact that several months have now elapsed since the measures in question ceased to apply, the Committee would point out that the banishment of trade union leaders or trade unionists on account of their trade union activities is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association.
4. 117. As regards the allegation that the security services have been looking for the trade union leader José Figueroa since 24 March 1984 and that as a result he has been obliged to go into hiding, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it has no information on this matter because of the clandestine nature of the activities of the leader in question. In these circumstances, since the complainant has given no information on the reasons why a search is being made for this trade union leader, the Committee considers that this allegation does not require further examination.