Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 239, Juin 1985

1. 188. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) submitted a complaint alleging violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 14 January 1985. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) also submitted a complaint in a communication dated 21 January 1985. The Government communicated its reply in a letter dated 1 February 1985.
2. 189. Ecuador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087) and the Right to Organise a nd Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 190. In its communication of 14 January 1985, the WFTU alleges the brutal repression by the Government of a peaceful national demonstration convened on 9 January 1985 by the Unitary Workers' Front (FUT) to protest against the high increase in the price of petrol and public transport tariffs. According to the WFTU, the intervention by government forces left eight people dead, dozens of injured and over 300 of the 300,000 demonstrators detained. In addition, the Government declared the demonstration illegal and persecuted the participants by expelling the students from their schools and by denying the salaries and holidays due to the workers. The WFTU expresses alarm at the Government's action all the more so since the demonstration concerned the deterioration of living and working conditions in the country.
2. 191. In its communication of 21 January 1985, the ICFTU states that its affiliate - the Confederation of Ecuadorian Free Trade Union Organisations (CEOSL) - together with other trade union confederations called a 48-hour general strike as from 10 January in view of the indiscriminate increase in the price of foodstuffs, transport tariffs and basic necessities. It alleges that the Government reacted violently and this resulted in the death of 15 workers, dozens of injured and the imprisonment of hundreds of persons. According to the ICFTU, the premises of the CEOSL were broken into by the police.

B. The Government's reply

1. 192. In its communication of 1 February 1985, the Government explains the background to the incidents referred to by the complainants: on 28 December 1984 it decided to increase the price of various petroleum-related products and, consequently, the price of public transport. It points out that, by virtue of Act No. 107 of 4 November 1982, salaried workers receive an automatically adjusted transport subsidy and that, accordingly, the workers were not affected by the increases as regards their movement to and from the workplace. According to the Government, at the same time, it announced the immediate introduction in the legislature of several bills of a social nature which included proposed subsidies to compensate for the increase in the cost of living; in addition, the National Congress was discussing a law to fix a new minimum wage and a general increase in salaries and wages.
2. 193. According to the Government, despite its explanations concerning the need for revision of prices and tariffs, the FUT and organisations of teachers and students decided on a general work stoppage on 9 and 10 January 1985, a stoppage which was not legally called since, under the Labour Code, strikes should be called in connection with a collective labour dispute and at the level of the undertaking or workplace. The Government states that it informed the public of the illegality of the work stoppage and of the risk that workers who arbitrarily occupied the workplaces might be considered as committing serious acts of misconduct possibly leading to requests from the authorities to terminate the employment relationship. Nevertheless, the Government also made it clear that, with a view to avoiding damage, it would not eject workers who occupied factories. The Government states that its balanced and moderate attitude was heeded by the vast majority of workers who reported normally for work. According to inquiries carried out in Quito, about 85 per cent of the undertakings continued to function normally, and the situation was similar throughout the country.
3. 194. The Government states that during the work stoppage the organisations involved arranged for certain groups of activists to disrupt pedestrian and vehicular traffic and to create a general climate of unrest; those workers who wished to continue working were faced with barricades, fires and threats of physical aggression. Faced with this and with a view to preserving law and order, the Government called for police intervention which remained within the limits of recommended prudence, avoiding the use of firearms and only resorting to tear-gas bombs and high-pressure water hoses. According to the Government, owing to the cautious behaviour of the police, the damage caused by the violent demonstrations was reduced to a minimum.
4. 195. The Government stresses that there was no loss of life due to police action although two deaths occurred due to a dynamite explosion in a terrorist refuge in Quito; one other death occurred from a fall into a deep trench and another apparently from an electric shock; a minor also died in unknown circumstances; it appears that a policemen also was killed when run down by an unidentified vehicle. The Government maintains that the number of wounded persons was vastly less than that alleged by the complainants and that most of them suffered the after-effects of tear-gas. According to police sources, the number of persons held after the disturbances was not in the hundreds and no one was detained for more than 48 hours. The Government states that some workers were among those detained, and they were mainly the activists responsible for the street violence.
5. 196. According to the Government, the police did not raid the CEOSL headquarters and no complaint has been received in this connection by the Ministry of Labour.
6. 197. Lastly, the Government recalls that it has always respected freedom of association which is guaranteed in the Ecuadorian Constitution (article 31(h)) and Labour Code (section 436). It reiterates that the movement of 9 and 10 January 1985 was not labour-related and that the Government refrained from repressive action. No worker who took part in the work stoppage has lost his job and there has been no persecution. It regrets that there were indirect victims and states that after the event it announced publicly its willingness to dialogue with the trade union leadership so as to solve the problems affecting both the workers and the other sectors of the community. According to the Government, the FUT has not responded positively to this whereas other major groups of workers have.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 198. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of deaths, injury and detention of workers due to government intervention in a peaceful work stoppage to protest over price increases in January 1985, as well as an alleged raid on the premises of one of the complainants' affiliates.
2. 199. The Committee must first note the conflicting versions of the events given by the complainants and the Government: according to the complainants the protest was peaceful and related to working and living conditions in the country, whereas the Government claims that the organisations responsible for the work stoppage resorted to street violence and that the protest was not labour-related; the complainants allege eight or 15 deaths due to police intervention, whereas the Government maintains that the forces of order acted with utmost caution and that the six deaths which occurred were indirect consequences of the protestors' violence; the complainants allege over 300 arrests whereas the Government states that only some workers were among those detained; the Government also denies the alleged raid by police on a union's headquarters.
3. 200. The Committee deplores the fact that at least six persons lost their lives during the strike and regrets the lack of information (such as the names of the deceased, their trade union affiliation, whether inquiries into the deaths were carried out) which might have enabled it to decide with certainty whether these deaths were directly linked to the exercise of trade union activities.
4. 201. As regards the alleged mass arrest of workers who participated in the work stoppage, the Committee notes the Government's explanation that the strike was not legal under the legislation in force and its indication that the workers detained were the instigators of the street violence. The Committee observes that, according to the Government, no one was detained for more than 48 hours and there have been no dismissals or persecution of workers who took part in the work stoppage. In this connection the Committee feels bound to recall that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations - in the framework of its examination of Ecuador's observance of Convention No. 87 - has for many years been commenting on the legislation concerning strikes; in particular it has called for the repeal of the penalty of imprisonment laid down in Legislative Decree No. 105 for the instigators of collective work stoppages. It would, accordingly, draw the Government's attention to the principle that strike action in defence of the workers' social and economic interests is one of the means of action which should be available to workers' organisations and that any intervention by the police or armed forces should be limited strictly to the maintenance of law and order. (See, for example, 234th Report, Case No. 1227 (India), para. 312.)
5. 202. In view of the lack of detailed information that has been supplied by the ICFTU as regards the alleged raid by the police on its affiliate's headquarters during the work stoppage and the Government's denial that any such raid took place, the Committee is not in a position to reach any conclusion on this allegation and accordingly considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.