Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 272, Juin 1990

1. 389. The complaint is contained in a letter from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 21 December 1988. The Government replied by letter of 27 March 1989. At its meeting of May 1989, the Committee asked the Office to obtain supplementary information from the complainants and the Government in order to proceed to the examination of this matter in full knowledge of the facts (see 265th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its May-June 1989 Session, para. 5). Subsequently, the ICFTU sent additional information in support of its complaint in a communication of 11 September 1989. The Government sent its comments and observations in reply to this additional information in a communication of 30 January 1990.
2. 390. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 391. The ICFTU alleges in its letter of 21 December 1988 that the "Act in respect of solidarist associations" institutionalises a series of anti-union practices that infringe Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The ICFTU adds that this type of association, with its structure and machinery, fails to respect the principles of independent organisations of workers by virtue of the presence of and control by employers; it prevents the development and functioning of genuine organisations of workers, whether trade unions or co-operatives, and has achieved its aim of weakening the trade union movement and destroying a large number of trade union organisations - an aim that was already held by the theorists and founders of the "solidarist movement". The ICFTU states that trade union representatives were not allowed to take part in discussions in the Legislative Committee which debated the aforementioned Act despite their request to do so; the trade union confederations were allowed merely to express their opinion in writing and, as they were given only two days in which to do so, they were unable to produce their reply in time.
2. 392. The "Act in respect of solidarist associations" is a step backwards in labour matters. It provides that a solidarist association may be set up with a minimum of 12 persons; this is an unfair provision because for trade unions to be set up a minimum of 20 persons is required (section 273 of the Labour Code). Similarly, whereas trade unions are not allowed to engage in profit-making commercial activities, solidarist associations may lawfully undertake a wide range of economic activities. The ICFTU states that, since the approval of the said Act, a marked deterioration has been noted in trade union rights, along with an increase in anti-union practices. The solidarist associations have become merely a means of manipulation by social sectors outside the working class. The social and ideological control exercised by the capitalist employers' sector is obvious and corresponds to the pattern of thinking, ideology, organisation and action of the solidarist movement. In practice, for example, as regards the supposed running of solidarist associations by the workers in an enterprise, in 50 associations chosen at random in 1981, the most important posts on the executive were held by persons in the following occupations: administrators or managers, professional staff, technicians and salesmen, that is to say senior employees; rank-and-file workers (operators, craftsmen, service personnel) held only between 5 and 12 per cent of the important posts, but up to 20 per cent of the less important ones. In addition, mention should be made of the decline of collective bargaining through collective agreements and its replacement by direct settlements between groups of workers and employers.
3. 393. According to the ICFTU, the increase in the number of solidarist associations is accompanied inevitably by a tendency for trade unions to disappear. This has reached dramatic proportions on the Atlantic side of Costa Rica and in other geographical areas formerly controlled by the Costa Rican trade union movement. During the present decade the solidarist associations have succeeded in supplanting most of the unions in the industrial sector and on banana plantations. According to information from the Ministry of Labour, in January 1987 there were 19 trade unions in the industrial sector having 4,313 members, while the solidarist associations numbered 343 with a membership of 16,229. In the case of workers on banana plantations, formerly a bastion of the country's trade union organisation, the unions have been decimated and in their place solidarist associations have been established. The persecution of trade unions and the development of solidarist associations in the private sector have resulted, inter alia, in a considerable decline in collective bargaining. With the support of the solidarist movement, employers have imposed on workers a system of direct settlement as a form of "collective bargaining" in order to put an end to collective agreements and socio-economic disputes. This is illustrated by the fact that in 1980 collective agreements and socio-economic disputes accounted for 29 and 64 per cent respectively of collective labour negotiations, and there were only 7 per cent of direct settlements. In 1986 the dispute element in negotiations as a whole had dropped to 28 per cent and collective agreements to 21 per cent. Meanwhile direct settlements went up by 51 per cent. All this is linked with the disappearance of the trade unions.
4. 394. In view of this serious situation, an ICFTU delegation went to Costa Rica where it met its affiliates and various Costa Rican authorities. The main subject of their discussions was the threat represented by solidarist associations and the use of them for anti-union practices. At a meeting with the President of the Republic, Mr. Oscar Arias, it was agreed to ask the ILO to send experts on labour law to draft amendments to the Labour Code in line with international labour Conventions. Unfortunately four years have gone by since the threat of solidarist associations to the free development of the trade union movement was discussed and the problem continues, aggravated by the continuing and systematic destruction of trade unions.
5. 395. Furthermore, the ICFTU refers to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association when, in Case No. 1304, it examined the Bill (now the Act) to consolidate the solidarist associations in Costa Rica, and to the suggestion the Committee made to the Government that it should consider the possibility of availing itself of the ILO's offer of technical assistance in connection with amendments to the Labour Code. The ICFTU also supplies a report by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers (ORIT) concerning the problem of solidarist associations and describing the "solidarist" campaign carried out since 1981 on the banana plantations. In particular the ICFTU describes a series of actions by the employers' sector in the province of Limón, which included the dismissal of a large number of workers belonging to grass-roots trade union bodies, the immediate setting up of solidarist associations on estates, the fact that every new worker taken on is virtually obliged to join the solidarist association, and disregard for the collective agreement signed with the trade union and its replacement by the direct settlement system. Of the 1,015 solidarist associations operating in the country, with a total of 160,000 members, 100 are active in the banana sector; they have a total working capital of 200 million colones and have negotiated 50 direct settlements.
6. 396. The ICFTU goes on to say that it is clear that the Government, the employers' associations and multinational enterprises are now paying increasing attention to the solidarist associations, which - in this current period of crisis - they see as a convenient way out of the problems that characterise industrial relations. The trade union movement, conversely, is seen as an obstacle to proposals for solving the economic crisis.
7. 397. Lastly, the ICFTU expresses its concern at the fact that the solidarist movement is extending to other countries of Latin America.
8. B. The Government's reply
9. 398. The Government states in a letter of 27 March 1989 that the right to organise is established in the Constitution, article 60 of which provides that: "both employers and workers are free to organise for the sole purpose of securing and maintaining economic, social or occupational benefits ...". Similarly, the Labour Code (section 291) assigns to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security the task of promoting trade union activity. Costa Rica has consistently applied these statutory provisions and the Government states that the Committee on Freedom of Association can vouch for its respect of the trade union movement should this be necessary. Indeed, in the majority of cases that have come before the Committee, the country has been freed from any imputations of applying a systematic policy of trade union persecution. As regards the representation presented by a number of trade union confederations and examined in Case No. 1304, alleging failure to apply a number of Conventions, the Government undertook to implement the relevant recommendations, especially one referring to technical assistance from the International Labour Office in drafting amendments to the Labour Code. Following the technical recommendations made by Office experts, the original draft was thus considerably improved, with an emphasis on collective labour relations.
10. 399. Early in January 1988 a visit was received from an ILO official. In May of the same year the Drafting Committee was advised by Mr. Geraldo von Potobsky, the representative of the Director-General, who provided the technical assistance that had been requested. In accordance with the corrections suggested by the International Labour Organisation, provisions in the draft legislation concerning the coexistence of the trade union and of the Permanent Committee of Workers, as representatives of employees in the enterprise, were removed so that the Committee could exist only where there was no trade union; at the same time provision was made for workers who had been dismissed for participating in trade union activities to be reinstated. Further changes to the draft legislation, to comply with ILO suggestions, concerned a number of provisions in the chapters on collective labour relations and, more specifically, the registration of trade unions, rules in respect of strikes, the quorum for trade union meetings, the re-election of trade union leaders, etc.
11. 400. As regards the allegations concerning the solidarist movement ("solidarismo"), the Government states that the decline the trade union movement has been suffering, as opposed to the rise of the solidarist movement referred to by the ICFTU, is caused in many cases by internal factors and questions of trade union management which are beyond the competence of the Government. It is well known that the right to trade union activity comes under government supervision but, in accordance with the legal order in force, there is no interference in the internal running of trade unions. This is because the persons concerned come under private law and the Government does not intervene in the organisation and running of their activities. This position is in conformity with the Conventions of the International Labour Organisation concerning freedom of association and related activities. The reasons for the decline or prosperity of trade union organisations can therefore best be explained by the organisations themselves who know more about their own activities and are responsible for the various factors that might affect the development and organisation of these activities.
12. 401. The Government adds that the solidarist movement, which was created by Act No. 6970 of 7 November 1984, follows on from the right of association enjoyed by all inhabitants of the Republic and embodied in Chapter IV of the Constitution, article 25 of which establishes that "the inhabitants of the Republic have the right to associate for lawful purposes. No person shall be obliged to join any association". This constitutional principle should be interpreted as the right of association in the broadest sense, covering a wide range of bodies from commercial companies to professional groupings, to a vast number of non-profit-making organisations such as foundations, community- development associations, etc. The Government emphasises that the trade union confederations are wrong in alleging that the solidarist associations were legally set up as a means of manipulation by social sectors outside the working class. Section 10 of the said Act provides that the running and administration of the associations lie solely in the hands of the workers belonging to them. Likewise, the aforementioned article 25 of the Constitution provides that no person may be obliged to join any association. This means that the allegation of the complainant is unfounded since it is not true to say that the workers are legally obliged to belong to these associations; were such a situation to arise, the persons concerned could lodge an appeal with the administrative or judicial authorities. Nor is there any foundation in the allegation of "government-solidarist association" collusion denounced by the ICFTU. Section 8 of Act No. 6970 in respect of solidarist associations states absolutely clearly that these associations, their executive and administrative bodies and their legal representatives are not allowed to undertake any type of activity aimed at preventing or in any way impeding the establishment and operation of trade union and co-operative organisations. Failure to comply with the above provision is punishable by the dissolution of the association. The said provision illustrates at all times the attitude of the Government in respecting the legal order in force as regards trade union matters.
13. 402. The Government also states that the Bill creating solidarist associations received wide publicity at the time, both within the Committee for Legal Affairs, and at the level of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly, so that trade union representatives had had sufficient time and opportunity to formulate their observations.
14. 403. In conclusion, the Government states that it rejects the charges made by the ICFTU alleging infringement of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and requests that the complaint be dismissed.
15. C. Subsequent events
16. 404. At its May 1989 meeting, the Committee asked the Office to obtain supplementary information from the parties in order to proceed to the examination of this matter in full knowledge of the facts.
17. 1. Supplementary information furnished by the ICFTU
18. 405. The ICFTU sent supplementary information in a communication of 11 September 1989.
19. 406. According to the ICFTU, the Government and employers have favoured solidarist associations, to the detriment of trade union organisations, through the promulgation of Act No. 6970 of October 1984. This Act has created a legal framework proper to the solidarist movement, thereby placing trade unions at a disadvantage, inasmuch as their legal framework of 1943 prohibits them from engaging in profit-making activities. The Act respecting solidarist associations, on the other hand, authorises this movement to engage freely in a variety of activities which have traditionally been carried out by trade union organisations, and, in addition, authorises solidarist associations to control and administer the termination grant fund, and to use it in financing its own activities. The current administration's National Development Plan for 1986-90 proposes to boost the productivity of labour by strengthening new forms of social organisation such as co-operatives and solidarist associations, in accordance with section 6 of the Act respecting solidarist associations, which provides that the State shall support solidarism. In connection with economic democracy, the same plan proposes, inter alia, to channel savings funds to co-operatives and solidarist associations. Nowhere in these proposals is there any mention of the participation of trade unions.
20. 407. As regards the economic support for the solidarist movement, the Government which took office in 1982 and will remain in power until 1990, has lent such support by using the following institutional resources:
21. (a) A gift from the Costa Rican Development Initiative Coalition (CINDE), an institution set up for the purpose of promoting foreign investment in the private entrepreneurial sector. This institution is part of the incentives sponsored by the Caribbean Basin Programme, which is promoted by the Government of the United States and financed by the American Institute for Development (AID). This institution donated to the John XXIII Social School, a solidarist body affiliated with the Catholic church, a gift in the amount of 5.5 million colones for the development of solidarist training courses.
22. (b) A donation of 5 million colones by the Ministry of Economic Policy and Planning to the John XXIII Social School, also for solidarist training programmes.
23. 408. In addition, the promulgation of the Act respecting the Modernisation of the Republic's Financial System in October 1988 was intended to assimilate the functions of private banks with those of the state bank. Section 28 of the said Act authorises the creation of solidarist banks. This new measure by the State illustrates its institutional support for solidarism, by which it seeks to favour and promote conditions at the political and juridical level to enable solidarism to compete, both politically and economically, with the programmes and spheres of action of co-operatives and trade unions.
24. 409. The ICFTU adds that the trade union policy developed by the last few government administrations in office during the period 1978-89 is characterised by efforts to limit the exercise of collective bargaining by trade unions in the public sector. This objective has been facilitated by the promulgation of the General Public Administration Act of 1978, which came into force on 26 April 1979. Section 112 of this Act states that "... administrative law shall apply to all relations between the Government and its employees". This subsequently led to the interpretation by the Republic's Attorney-General that it was unlawful to sign collective agreements in the public sector, inasmuch as, under the new legislation, labour relations were to be governed by administrative law, and not by labour law.
25. 410. The policies designed to reduce and control public expenditures which were adopted as part of the negotiations and agreements with the International Monetary Fund, led to the adoption of the Budget Authority Act of 1982, and the Public Sector Balanced Budget Act of 1984. In both cases the prerogatives of autonomous institutions with respect to their own budgets were reduced, either by depriving them of certain resources or establishing new controls and the obligation of complying with wage directives issued by the budget authority. These arguments also led to the establishment of limits to the negotiation of collective agreements. This factor, together with the refusal of Costa Rican and multinational private enterprise to sign collective agreeements, effectively prevents trade unions from engaging in negotiations with employers.
26. 411. As regards the support of the employers' sector for the solidarist movement, the ICFTU states that Mr. Edmundo Gerli G., a representative of the employers' sector to the 5th Solidarist Day held in May 1989, said:
27. "The Chamber of Industries was quite right recently in expressing concern over the symptoms, rumours, events and revelations which indicate that solidarism is in danger. I am very pleased to be the one to state that all of us here should thank the Chamber for its initiative in having its executive meet with the Solidarist Union and the John XXIII Social School. These revelations are very disquieting, since they show beyond a doubt that solidarism faces a well-organised and well-financed siege, a meticulously planned war which seeks to weaken it; what is more, we have come to the realisation that the greatest vulnerability of the successful relationship which we have established between workers and management, lies, paradoxically, among those who have benefited most, in other words, the employers."
28. The speaker then went on to call on employers and the Chamber of Industries to support the creation of the Higher Soldarism Council. The ICFTU also states that on the same occasion, Mr. Samuel Hidalgo said:
29. "Trade unionists have frequently alleged on the radio, in the newspapers, and before the ILO and other international meetings, where we cannot defend ourselves, that we are but a smokescreen for employers. These accusations are made by persons outside solidarism who are not familiar with our noble and high ideals. The problem of solidarism is that in many cases employers set up a solidarist association in their enterprise and then leave it to its own devices, without participating in or supporting the association's activities. The neglect and lack of interest by employers and their representatives is the Achilles' heel of solidarism."
30. For his part, Mr. Rodrigo Jiménez, Executive Director of the Costa Rican Solidarist Union, stated on the same occasion that:
31. "All solidarists, employers, leaders and workers must shore up all levels of the solidarist movement, especially in situations which could undermine the population's confidence in the movement, or lend credence to the disinformation campaign which seeks to infiltrate, persecute and slander the solidarist movement. Each one of us must become an alert guardian, objective critic and enthusiastic activist on behalf of our movement."
32. 412. The ICFTU also encloses newspaper clippings which confirm the support and objectives of the employers' sector as regards solidarism. (An item from La Prensa Libre of 5 August 1989 describes the interest of the Costa Rican Solidarist Union in educating employers on the principles and objectives of solidarism.) Likewise, Mr. Jack Loeb, president of the BANDECO and PINDECO multinational enterprises, agreed in January 1987 to make an annual contribution of 1.5 million colones to be invested in the training of solidarist leaders; in May 1989, workers and trade union leaders in the banana sector describe how enterprises support solidarism.
33. 413. The ICFTU encloses with its communication the following extracts of a number of testimonies:
34. Extracts of the testimony of Mario Mendoza Morava, official of the SITAGAH:
35. "Solidarism in Río Frío ... has acquired some strength, based on or directly supported by the entire administrative apparatus of the enterprise, which, as you know, is immense. On each farm there are at least five persons from the administration who are directly engaged in proselitism; in most cases, they pressure workers to leave the trade union and join the solidarist movement, for this is in the interests of the enterprise."
36. Extracts of the testimony of Eduardo Vargas, general secretary of the Single Trade Union of Plantation Workers (SUTAP):
37. "The executives of solidarist associations ... have excellent relations with the enterprise, meet with its managers, and receive instructions from the enterprise. So much so that the officials of the John XXIII Social School are based in the Human Resources Office ... which was given to them by the enterprise."
38. Further on, he states:
39. "... the growth of the solidarist movement is the outcome of a highly elaborate policy of enterprises to challenge trade union organisations, and to seek to displace a traditional organisation of workers by another organisation which makes great promises."
40. And he adds:
41. "On the farm, they tell you, if you want a house, join solidarism and leave the trade union. If you want easy work, leave the trade union and join solidarism. And as a last resort, if you want to keep your job, join solidarism."
42. 414. The ICFTU also gives information concerning the number of direct settlements which have been concluded in recent years. According to the ICFTU, the proliferation of direct settlements, a collective legal instrument used by employers, is an accurate indication of the development of solidarism and of its anti-trade union function. The statistics show a drastic fall in collective bargaining, and a spectacular growth in the number of direct settlements. In 1980, 41 collective bargaining agreements were signed, and there were 92 collective disputes and 10 direct settlements; in 1988, however, only 18 collective bargaining agreements were signed, while there were 54 collective disputes and 34 direct settlements. These data correspond with the growth of solidarism, inasmuch as there were only 215 solidarist associations in 1980, but over 1,400 in 1988 (data from the Solidarist Census, published by the Costa Rican Solidarist Union).
43. 415. The productive sectors in which most direct settlements have been signed are agriculture, especially the banana plantations on the Atlantic coast, and industry. As regards agriculture, only one direct settlement was signed in 1980, but in 1987 and 1988, 36 and 30 direct settlements, respectively, were signed. This rapid growth is due to the fact that direct settlements have gradually replaced collective bargaining. In 1987 and 1988, when 36 and 30 direct settlements were signed in agriculture, only three collective agreements were signed in each of those years. This total compares with approximately 47 collective agreements which were signed in 1980; most of these agreements have been replaced by direct settlements with solidarism, according to the Plantation Workers' Trade Union (SITRAP). The other sector in which direct settlements have become common is industry. The relatively smaller number of direct settlements in this sector is due to a weak trade union presence. For this reason, solidarism does not find it necessary to promote direct settlements to replace trade union organisations, as it does in the banana sector. In the industrial sector trade unions represent 7.7 per cent of all trade unions and have a membership rate of 5 per cent, while solidarist associations account for 36 per cent and have a membership rate of 42 per cent of the total. This shows that the industrial sector has come under the control of the solidarist movement, according to data furnished by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in 1988, quoted by the ICFTU.
44. 416. The ICFTU also takes up the question of direct settlements concluded in enterprises or branches of activity in which trade unions have traditionally been active. According to the ICFTU, such direct settlements have bypassed the following trade unions:
45. STPPS, Pococí y Guácimo Plantation Workers' Trade Union, in 1979.
46. SITRAP, Agricultural and Plantation Workers' Trade Union, in 1985.
47. UTRAL, Limón Agricultural Workers' Trade Union, in 1987.
48. SITAGAH, Heredia Agricultural and Livestock Workers' Industrial Trade Union, in 1987.
49. In Valle de La Estrella, on Costa Rica's Atlantic seaboard, the Standard Fruit Company, a banana producer, signed several direct settlements with its workers, with the support of solidarism, in June 1987. In earlier years, worker-employer relations in this enterprise had been handled through the Limón Agricultural Workers' Trade Union (UTRAL), which signed its last collective agreement with Standard on 25 June 1984, valid until 1986. In the banana-producing area of Río Frío, the Standard Fruit Company also signed several direct settlements with its workers (Farm 6, Farm 3, Farm 9, Farm 8 and Río Frío Engineering). In this area, worker-employer relations were handled through the Heredia Agricultural, Livestock and Allied Workers' Industrial Trade Union (SITAGAH), which, like the UTRAL trade union, signed its last collective agreement with the enterprise on 25 June 1984, to run until 1986. Although both of these trade unions still exist, their joint membership does not currently exceed 50 members, according to the ICFTU.
50. 417. The boom in direct settlements in the banana-producing area has, in most cases, been accompanied by vigorous anti-trade union campaigns carried out through the media; these campaigns reflect the intentions of solidarism and enterprises to replace collective agreements and trade unions. The following are some of the enterprises in which collective agreements have now been replaced by direct settlements:
51. 1. Compañía Bananera El Carmen S.A., Siquirres 2. Compañía Bananera Monte Líbano S.A., Bataán 3. Compañía Bananera La Perla S.A., Bataán 4. Compañía Internacional del Banano S.A., Siquirres 5. Compañía Bananita S.A., Matina 6. Compañía Bananera La Peña, Estrada 7. Compañía Bananera Margarita, Bataán 8. Finca Prado, Guápiles 9. Finca La Perdiz, La Rita, Pococí 10. Finca Guajira, Guápiles 11. Compañía Productora Tropical S.A., Guápiles 12. Compañía Bananera Rosana Farns., Guápiles 13. Finca Bananos Oro, Cariari 14. Finca Río Jiménez, Guácimo 15. Finca Coopecariari, Cariari 16. Finca El Jardín, Cariari 17. Finca Frehold, Siquirres 18. Finca Freeman, 28 millas 19. Finca San Rafael, Guápiles 20. Finca Santa Clara, Guápiles 21. Finca Tortuguero, Guápiles 22. Finca Caribe, Cariari 23. Finca Parismina, Guácimo 24. Finca San Peter, San José y San Pedro, Cariari 25. Manufacturera Aurind S.A., Alajuela 26. Atlantis Costarricense S.A., San José 27. Calzado ECCO S.A., Cartago
52. The ICFTU concludes by stating that in 1980 there was an average of 47 collective agreements in the banana sector, but that in 1989 there were only three collective agreements in force.
53. 418. The ICFTU also states that several trade union leaders or members have been dismissed from enterprises in which solidarist associations are active. According to the ICFTU, this has affected not only trade union leaders and members, but also persons who, though they belong to the solidarist movement, have maintained relations with trade unionists. They enclose the following corroborating testimony from several workers:
54. (a) "... they dismissed me for being among those who would stick their neck out for the workers, and also because they were about to finalise a direct settlement (finalised on 15 August of this year) and the owner of the enterprise did not wish for me to be involved in negotiations. The employer, Fabio Campos, is clearly involved in handling the association's funds: he alone signs cheques, and funds cannot be moved without his approval." (Casimiro Cortéz, former worker on the Bananera Modelo plantation.)
55. (b) "I was dismissed six months ago for belonging to the trade union and for refusing to join the solidarist movement. I was subjected to threats and persecution." (Standard-owned farm.)
56. (c) "I was dismissed along with 15 fellow workers during the incorporation to the farm." (José Francisco Silva Silva, former employee of Standard.)
57. (d) "The trade union repression on Carmen Farms 1, 2 and 3 was accompanied by a massive and selective dismissal of workers belonging to the trade union and old workers with a record." (Roger Hernández Cortés.)
58. (e) "I was dismissed for not wishing to join the solidarist movement." (Pánfilo Gutiérrez, worker on Farm 6, Valle de La Estrella.)
59. (f) "... a worker was dismissed because she was seen talking with Eduardo Vargas, the trade union leader, and therefore suspected of having joined the trade union." (Eduardo Vargas, SUTAP.)
60. The ICFTU explains that this testimony resulted from investigations carried out by ASEPROLA since 1985 in the Costa Rican banana sector. The ICFTU notes that it is difficult to obtain testimony since workers are afraid to speak out.
61. 419. Next, the ICFTU furnishes a list of Costa Rican banana trade union leaders who were dismissed by enterprises owing to their trade union activities and refusal to join the solidarist movement.
62. Name of trade union leader Trade union
63. 1. Fernando Mayorga Caravaca Agricultural Plantations Workers' Trade Union, SITRAP 2. Wenceslao Porras Casanova, SITRAP 3. Porfirio López Ruiz, SITRAP 4. Rafael Chávez Calderón, SITRAP 5. Genaro Villegas Vindas, SITRAP 6. Luis Madrigal Alvarez, SITRAP 7. Rodolfo Mendoza Bustos, SITRAP 8. Otilio Méndez Ramírez, SITRAP 9. Olman Mora Bogantes, SITRAP 10. Godofredo Araya Vargas, SITRAP 11. Minor Cordero León, SITRAP 12. Oscar Torres Hernández, SITRAP 13. Hernán Zúñiga Martínez, SITRAP 14. Erneliton Montes Alvarez, SITRAP 15. Víctor Manuel Mata Mata, SITRAP 16. Santos Torres Baltodano, SITRAP 17. Danilo Angulo Solís, SITRAP 18. Ramón Gómez Alvarado, SITRAP 19. Rigoberto Torres Hernández, SITRAP 20. William Espinoza González, SITRAP 21. Gerardo Vega Varela, SITRAP 22. Anastasio Carrillo Carrillo, SITRAP 23. José Santos Flores Duarte, SITRAP 24. Carlos Salazar Villegas, SITRAP 25. Emiliano Obando Arias, SITRAP 26. José Matarrita Matarrita, SITRAP 27. Leopoldo Torres Torres, SITRAP 28. José Raúl González Espinoza, SITRAP 29. Luis Obando Montes Limón Agricultural Workers' Trade Union, UTRAL 30. Juan Rafael Obando Arrieta, UTRAL 31. Manuel Ramírez Rojas, UTRAL 32. Manuel Varela Blanco, UTRAL 33. Francisco Fallas Rojas, UTRAL 34. Gilbert Monge Pérez, UTRAL 35. Gerónimo Hernández Sánchez, UTRAL 36. José Miguel Jiménez Jiménez, UTRAL 37. Pedro Pablo Pérez Castillo, UTRAL 38. Alfonso Hernández Hernández, UTRAL 39. Víctor Manuel Rosales Rosales, UTRAL 40. Juan Manuel Rodríguez Dinarte, UTRAL 41. José de la Cruz López Obando, UTRAL 42. Abel Rojas Villalobos, UTRAL 43. José Leandro Fajardo Fajardo, UTRAL 44. Bernardo Bonilla González, UTRAL 45. José Francisco Silva Silva, UTRAL 46. Javier Sánchez Rodríguez, UTRAL 47. William Rodríguez Morales, UTRAL 48. Juan Luis Chávez Vega, UTRAL 49. Manuel Araya Rodríguez, UTRAL 50. Carlos Petoy Alvarez, UTRAL 51. Roberto Gutiérrez, UTRAL 52. Marcedonio León Arias, UTRAL 53. Evaristo Pérez Moreno Siquirres and Matina Agricultural Workers' Trade Union, UTRASIMA 54. Eliécer Matarrita Mejía, UTRASIMA 55. José Espinoza Ortega, UTRASIMA 56. José Manuel Calderón Rojas, UTRASIMA 57. Bernardo Chavarría Chavarría, UTRASIMA 58. Víctor Rodríguez R., UTRASIMA 59. Elías Villaseti Sancho, UTRASIMA 60. Jorge Luis Hernández Coronado, UTRASIMA 61. Félix Figueroa Rosales, UTRASIMA 62. Rafael Chávez, UTRASIMA 63. Macedonio Chávez Díaz, UTRASIMA 64. Miguel Alemán Dinarte, UTRASIMA 65. Vicente Castellón Ramos, UTRASIMA 66. Gerardo Porras Obando, UTRASIMA 67. Benito Salazar Gómez, UTRASIMA 68. Jorge Badilla Hernández Heredia Agricultural, Livestock and Allied Workers' Industrial Trade Union, SITAGAH 69. Gerardo Jiménez Patiño, SITAGAH 70. Jorge Alfaro Quirós, SITAGAH 71. Juan Luis Rodríguez Gómez, SITAGAH 72. Rolando Gaitán Gamboa, SITAGAH 73. Edwin Pérez Aguirre, SITAGAH 74. Jorge Ugalde Varela, SITAGAH
64. 420. The ICFTU has also examined the specific cases in which a worker has been coerced or required to join a solidarist association or to withdraw from a trade union organisation, and the corresponding court decisions, if any. The ICFTU states that job security in solidarist enterprises depends on the worker's (forced) affiliation with the solidarist movement; workers have come to understand very well that they will lose their jobs if they fail to join the solidarist movement. Fear of dismissal and psychological repression make it impossible for Costa Rican trade unionism to find workers in factories or banana farms who are willing to testify against solidarist coercion and trade union persecution. According to the ICFTU, this helps to explain the fact that there are currently no legal proceedings in labour courts filed by disgruntled workers, and that the trade unions have not yet been able to request the dissolution of any solidarist association by the Ministry of Labour, in accordance with the provisions of section 8 of the Solidarist Act. Even so, the Costa Rican central trade unions affiliated with the ICFTU-ORIT, as well as other Costa Rican central trade unions, have been able to compile dossiers with the specific testimony of workers who have denounced solidarism. These dossiers include the testimony of 13 industrial workers and 20 banana workers who, even though they have made a first statement in writing, must be convinced to have their affidavits registered before a notary public, so that their testimony may be considered in the final debate by the ILO's Committee.
65. 421. The ICFTU encloses excerpts of the original text of some of the statements of these workers from industry and the banana sector:
66. (a) "Two years before I was dismissed I was assigned to the worst tasks in the most difficult areas. I was the object of scorn, and as a small cultivator, they took back my parcel of land and things. They did all of this to force us to leave the trade union. They also sought to intimidate me by persecuting my children; for example, when I refused to join to the soladirist association, for two-and-a-half months they did not give my children work, and the supervisors were abusive with the daughters and wives of workers; they sent messages through Marchena (the foreman) to my daughter ..." (Pánfilo Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, worker, Farm 6, Vale La Estrella, Limón.)
67. (b) "... I was persecuted and harassed for belonging to the trade union; two months' prior to being dismissed, Mr. César Pajuelo, the enterprise's manager, began to tell me that I should join the solidarist movement, that I should leave the trade union, that I should join because it would be good for me." (Roger Hernández Cortés, worker on the Carmen 2 Farm, Siquirres, Limón.)
68. (c) "I was persecuted for having joined the trade union and harassed to participate in the solidarist movement. Marcos urged me to join, saying that otherwise I might be dismissed." (Herminio Castro Picado, worker, Imperio Farm, Siquirres, Limón.)
69. (d) "Before I was dismissed I was harassed by solidarists, who urged me to withdraw from the trade union, who told me that I was not a fool, that I was smart, and that if I did (leave the trade union) I would be made a foreman, and that if I wished, they would write for me the letter of resignation from the trade union." (José Francisco Silva Silva, former worker on the Concepción Farm, Valle de La Estrella.)
70. (e) "A series of tactics were used to intimidate and repress all forms of organisation other than solidarism, such as for example:
71. - the setting up of workers whom they wished to dismiss;
72. - a cut-back on overtime, to reduce wages paid to the worker.
73. (f) "When we decided to form a trade union to counter the Association's misdeeds, there was a very severe repression; at first, there was talk of dismissal, then the actual dismissals took place. Many people were dismissed without compensation, on the grounds that their productivity had dropped; in fact, we all knew that it was because of the creation of the trade union. (Juana Herrera Muñoz, worker of Interfashion Industries.)"
74. 422. In addition, according to the ICFTU, a number of trade unions (SITRAP, SUTAP, FESITRAP and CUT) filed a protest with the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare on 31 August 1987, alleging a series of irregularities in the job security of banana workers in a number of enterprises, and describing the means by which the enterprises exert pressure against the workers. These trade unions requested that investigations immediately be undertaken into the allegations, and corrective measures taken to preserve job security. The Ministry, however, failed to take real and effective action. This protest is important inasmuch as it not only describes the actual conditions of work in multinational banana enterprises during a time of economic prosperity and massive development of solidarist associations, but also sheds light on the underlying problem: the impossibility for banana workers to organise trade unions, thus depriving workers of the means to defend their dignity. Moreover, the solidarist organisation either overlooks this reality or intervenes only for the purpose of promoting the interests of its members and to undermine the situation of workers not affiliated with it, by promoting unequal conditions between workers who are "privileged" for their solidarist militancy and workers who are "marginalised" for failing to join ranks with the solidarists.
75. 423. According to the ICFTU, there is no legal protection against these acts, as determined by the ICFTU high-level mission to Costa Rica in 1988, represented by its Deputy General Secretary, Mr. Enzo Frizo. As regards efforts to coerce workers to join the solidarist movement, the ICFTU states that the Act respecting the solidarist association (No. 6970) states in section 7 that the decision to join solidarism is the worker's own, in formal respect of the principle of freedom of association: "the associations governed by the present Act shall guarantee the free affiliation and disaffiliation of their members". First, however, it should be recalled that the above-mentioned facts and the testimony of a number of workers show a clear violation of the Solidarist Act in the daily life of solidarist associations and enterprises. Secondly, it should be noted that the above-mentioned section establishes a normative basis which finds no support in the Act itself, since the Act provides no sanctions for persons who fail to comply with this section (be it the association's executive or the enterprise). Thirdly, Chapter V of the Act (and section 56, in particular), lists the grounds for the dissolution or liquidation of the association; nevertheless, it does not explicitly state that the violation of section 7 (coerced affiliation) is cause for dissolution. Obviously, the Act and its regulations do not establish preventive mechanisms for the legal protection of workers against such acts, or against others which may affect them. With no recourse under the Solidarist Act, the worker's only legal recourse is to file suit before a civil court (not the labour court) under habeas corpus, alleging the unlawful deprivation of his freedom. But such an administrative proceeding is costly, slow and complex and, what is more, current judisprudence shows that most cases filed are rejected. The ICFTU admits that Costa Rica's Labour Code, and section 70 in particular, provides for the legal protection of workers who are persecuted or intimidated for belonging to a trade union, in the following terms: "The employer shall not compel an employee by any means whatsoever, to withdraw from a lawful association or group of which he is a member." This would suggest that in the daily life of Costa Rican enterprises, employers are failing to comply with this prohibition by tacitly violating the freedom of association of workers. The ICFTU explains that this is made possible, not only by the meagre institutional supervision of labour legislation by the Costa Rican Government, but because the infraction of this section of the Labour Code carries with it an insignificant fine which ranges from 300 to 1,000 colones, in other words US$3.60 to US$12.12 at the 1989 rate of exchange. Thus, employers may infringe this section, which seeks to provide for the legal protection of workers, with impunity. If the court awards in favour of the worker, the employer must merely pay a symbolic fine. In this connection, the ICFTU encloses a memorandum sent by the Clothing, Dressmaking, Textile and Leather Workers' National Trade Union to the President of the Chamber of Industry and the Ministry of Labour of Costa Rica, which denounces the violation of freedom of association in 39 enterprises in the industrial sector in San José, Costa Rica.
76. 424. In conclusion, the ICFTU states that the solidarist associations have developed because of the existence of a multiple alliance of Costa Rican society in favour of solidarism, composed of powerful allies: a conservative segment of the Catholic church, the media, the major political parties, the employers' associations and the Government. According to the ICFTU, the Government, through the public authorities responsible for worker-employer relations (the Ministry and the labour courts) has given considerable support to solidarism in many parts of the country by agreeing to plebiscites within the enterprise on behalf of the association, by accepting direct settlements in spite of trade union protests, and by remaining indifferent to the refusal of industrial and banana enterprises to sign collective agreements and collective employment contracts. The church has converted the John XXIII Social School, an official Catholic body, into a promoter, counsellor and educator of the solidarists on banana plantations and in many parts of the country. The Catholic church has used its moral and religious prestige to promote a campaign among employers to persecute trade unionism and to expand solidarism. The media (press and radio) have intensified efforts to manipulate public opinion by degrading trade unionism, and extolling the virtues of solidarism. The existence of a juridical framework specifically in support of the solidarist movement (the Act respecting solidarist associations, No. 6970), has enabled employers to neglect labour legislation (the Labour Code, the right to trade union protection, the payment of termination grants, etc.), and enabled solidarist associations themselves to carry out their social and economic programmes and their organisational operations with clear advantages, to the detriment of trade unionism. The existence of a favourable climate at the national and international level for the neo-liberal tenets of the employers' sector has enabled solidarism to set itself up as the "labour" sector which supports the International Monetary Fund's prescriptions of privatisation and regeneration of the economy through the private sector, with the support of international financial bodies. Thus, approval for the establishment of solidarist banks as private entities with a social function, through section 28 of the Act Modernising the Republic's Financial System of 1988 authorises the creation of solidarist banks (note the plural), which enable solidarism to gain access to private banking and to attract the internal savings of solidarists as well as the credits, on easy terms, of the international financial system. Through these banks, solidarism helps to promote privatisation throughout the country, and this places the trade union movement at a further economic disadvantage with respect to the solidarist movement.
77. 425. The ICFTU reiterates that the factors which promote the internal development of solidarism are the creation of an economic basis through the administration of termination grant funds paid by the employer to the association, and the lucrative use of the same, in accordance with the Act respecting solidarist associations (note that these are falsely termed "labour" funds, even though they are paid in by the enterprise as the "employer's contribution"), the logistical support provided by the enterprise to solidarist associations (administrative expenses, permits for officials and leaders, payment of officials, training courses, financial donations), a highly efficient organisational structure with abundant human and physical resources, such as staff, vehicles, premises, financial resources, and gifts in cash and in kind, etc.
78. 426. The ICFTU states that the major causes which explain the discrimination against and weakening of trade union organisations at the national level are anti-trade union repression and the violation of freedom of association, as reflected in the dismissal of trade union leaders, intimidation, blackmail and bribes to workers by the enterprise; coercion of trade union leaders, occasional hiring practices, blacklists, and the threat of dismissal, through which employers apply pressure and discriminate against trade unions, while favouring the growth of the solidarist movement. The ICFTU adds that the legal and organisational circumstances in which trade unionism functions in the public and private sectors prevent trade unions from conducting their affairs, and cites constant employer repression against trade union leaders and threats of dismissal against workers who are thinking of joining the union.
79. 427. The "legal" problem at the national level, according to the ICFTU, is the lack of protection or jurisdictional protection for trade unions; obstacles to the constitution, organisation and functioning of trade unions, owing to an obsolete Labour Code; the recent adoption of restrictive laws and regulations in the public sector (for the budget and public finances), which weaken trade unionism and put it at a clear disadvantage vis-à-vis solidarism. In particular, this recent legislation makes it impossible to sign collective agreements in the public sector in Costa Rica. A related development is the Government's failure to comply with current labour legislation and ILO Conventions, thus depriving trade unionism of protection, tarnishing its image and undermining its effectiveness and capacity for action at the national level. In addition, the economic crisis has led employers to harden their position and to a consequent reduction in the capacity of workers to mobilise and present claims. The work of the trade union has been made more difficult, because workers are afraid to organise and to participate owing to threats of dismissal and continued repression.
80. 428. As regards the weakening of trade unions for internal reasons, the ICFTU considers that the failure to renew collective agreements and employment contracts has led to the loss of trade union representativity. Many trade unions have disappeared following the non-renewal of collective agreements; and the loss of membership considerably weakens trade union finances and strength. It is clear that this process is a consequence of the introduction of the solidarist movement and the employer's insistence on direct settlement, under the control of the solidarists. The economic situation of trade unions also worsens when trade unions are denied the administration of termination grant funds. While the solidarists (under section 18 of their Act) are allowed to administer these funds, the trade unions are still subject to the provisions of section 29 of the Labour Code, which provides for termination grants which workers may expect upon dismissal, but for which there is no legal guarantee: this affects the financial condition of trade unions and their prospects of offering economic and social services on behalf of workers, at least to the same extent as solidarist organisations.
81. 429. The deterioration of trade unions may also be explained by other factors typical of Costa Rican trade unionism, such as: the absence of trade union solidarity and its internal division during the years of the economic crisis, which eroded trade union strength; the low level of financing of trade unionism, which, coupled with solidarist aggression, prevents trade unions, with their limited resources, from facing the challenges of mobilisation and struggle in a time of crisis and employer aggression; the emphasis of trade unionism of wage bargaining, which led to a neglect of actions and programmes in the social, cultural and economic spheres, to meet the real needs of workers (currently, solidarism is capitalising on the void left by trade unions and has sponsored such programmes to attract the working class); the limited ability of trade union confederations to bring workers together and to plan - as a result of the several factors mentioned above - which, coupled with its loss of power and reputation, diminishes the impact of trade unionism in society and its ability to respond to social challenges. Lastly, the inadequacy, inconstancy and underdevelopment of trade union training programmes have contributed to the low level of trade union consciousness among workers attracted to solidarism; this has weakened trade unionism even further and been taken as evidence of its inability to respond adequately.
82. 2. The Government's new reply
83. 430. The Government sent its reply to new allegations in a communication of 30 January 1990. According to the Government, the deterioration of the trade union movement vis-à-vis the solidarist movement derives primarily from internal factors and shortcomings in the management of trade union organisations. These problems lie beyond the Government's control. For this reason, the Government is not qualified to respond on behalf of employers; its role is essentially limited to ensure compliance with Act No. 6970 of 7 November 1984 (the Act respecting solidarist associations), as regards the registration of all such organisations which may be established in the country. The Government's fulfilment of the provisions of the Act cannot be interpreted as favouring one type of organisation to the detriment of another. In summary, the Government repeats that it has not favoured solidarist organisations to the detriment of trade union organisations.
84. 431. As regards the application of section 6 of the above-mentioned Act, which provides that the State shall endeavour to strengthen and promote the development of solidarist associations, the Government indicates that it has not been possible, for a number of reasons, to give effect to this provision; therefore, there are no grounds for allegations of trade union discrimination or favoritism towards solidarism. On the contrary, the Government emphasises section 361 of the Labour Code, on the subject of trade unionism, states that: "the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare shall promote the harmonious and well-ordered development of the trade union movement through such legal means as it considers advisable. To this end it shall issue by means of executive decrees such provisions as may be necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of the right of unionisation." Thus, the Costa Rican State has the legal obligation to promote trade unionism; in other words, the provisions of section 6 of the Act respecting solidarist associations are matched by equivalent provisions with respect to trade unions in the Labour Code. This implies that, from a legal standpoint, there is equal treatment for both types of organisations (trade unions and solidarist associations).
85. 432. Concerning the allegations regarding the trends in direct settlements in recent years, the Government furnishes the following information:
86. Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
87. Number of direct settlements 16 34 18 24 32 35 34 52
88. The ratification of these direct settlements, and their registration with the Department of Social Organisations, have been carried out in accordance with legislation in force. In all cases such instruments have received wide support among the workers concerned. In some cases the workers have preferred this form of negotiation to collective bargaining agreements, and some direct settlements have been the first means of negotiation available to these workers. The increase in the number of direct settlements is due, inter alia, to the fact that large banana enterprises such as Bandeco and Standard Fruit Co., which formerly had a single collective agreement for all workers, replaced such agreement with direct settlements for each of the farms they operated. In addition, the Government states that it should be recalled that direct settlements expire after a period of one to three years, and that most have a validity of two years. Thus, the total number of direct settlements includes not only new direct settlements, but also the renegotiation of direct settlements which have expired. According to the Government, in 1989 the number of direct settlements increased considerably in as much as 15 such settlements with the Standard Fruit Company were "renegotiated"; also, the increase reflects the commencement of smaller enterprises on the Atlantic coast, under the programme to promote and develop the banana industry.
89. 433. The Government adds that direct settlements have been concentrated in the agricultural sector, although several such instruments have also been signed in the services sector: in 1989, 42 direct settlements, (new or renegotiated) were signed in agriculture, two in industry, and eight in the services sector. The causes for this increase in direct settlements in agricultural activities are very complex, and include the following: (a) the preference of workers for solidarist organisation over trade unionism, given the desire of workers for the satisfaction for immediate objectives, which the solidarist movement can deliver; (b) the inability of the trade union movement to define policies which reflect the aspirations of the majority of their members and of non-unionised workers, owing to the excessive politisisation of its leaders, the lack of internal democracy, and the tendency of a number of trade union leaders to search for personal gain at the expense of the general interest; (c) the greater acceptance of the solidarist movement by employers, and the support they give to it.
90. 434. The Government admits that there have been cases in which direct settlements have been signed in enterprises or branches of activity where trade unions previously operated, for the reasons given in the foregoing paragraph; nevertheless, it emphasises that most of those trade unions did not have a real presence in the enterprise owing to a lack of representativity; their presence was merely formal or the result of their registration. Plebiscites in such cases revealed that workers preferred direct settlements to the negotiation of collective agreements.
91. 435. As regards the private sector, the practice follows Costa Rican labour legislation as regards the procedure and forms of collective bargaining (section 54 and following, as well as section 497 and following of the Labour Code). The draft reforms of the Labour Code propose to adapt collective bargaining to present social and economic requirements, in the interest of workers and employers. In all cases, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare makes available to both parties specialised officials to assist in bargaining and to propose formulas which will be acceptable to workers and employers; likewise, where needed, it also makes available facilities for collective bargaining. In addition, where it is alleged that employers have persecuted or hindered workers and their trade union representatives, the National General Labour Inspectorate Office intervenes to defend the rights of workers.
92. 436. As regards the public sector, the Government contends that there are adequate regulations concerning the possibility of bargaining with state institutions (Government Council Session No. 25, article 6, agreement 4, of 22 October 1986).
93. 437. The Government acknowledges that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has received complaints of unjustified dismissal and trade union discrimination. Nevertheless, it adds that the corresponding investigations have not uncovered evidence of any such infractions. According to the Government, it is not known whether such cases have been brought before the labour courts, owing to the constitutional division of powers, under the which the judicial power is responsible for ruling on dismissals which may occur in any workplace. It is true, however, that some trade union leaders have complained to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, sometimes through the media, of coercion which seeks to have workers join solidarist associations. Nevertheless, the corresponding investigations by the officials of this Ministry have not found evidence of coercion, at least among workers still employed by the enterprise. What has happened is that when a workers is dismissed for other motives, complaints are filed charging trade union persecution while the worker was employed.
94. 438. The Government states that there are two forms of protection for workers affected by any type of coercion to affiliate with solidarist associations: (a) the National General Labour Inspectorate Office takes legal measures to sanction infractions with the fines prescribed by law; and (b) the worker or workers concerned may demand payment of such sums to which they are entitled upon termination. Workers have a third guarantee which is frequently stipulated in collective agreements, under which workers who have been unjustly dismissed are reinstated, with the payment of back wages. The Government states, however, that this third modality is not provided for in positive legislation; for this reason, the draft reforms of the Labour Code provide for a specific procedure which seeks to remedy this shortcoming.
95. 439. In conclusion, the Government states that as far as it is concerned, there is no anti-trade union discrimination of any kind, and that it strictly abides by legal provisions and the free and sovereign decisions of workers. Where workers decide to opt for a specific form of social organisation (whether a trade union or solidarist association), the public authorities merely seek to ensure that such decision is given full effect. The Government repeats that the weakening of trade union organisations and the development of solidarist associations is not the result of any action or omission on its part.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 440. In the first place, the Committee takes note with interest of both the additional specific information furnished by the complainant organisation and the observations furnished by the Government. The complainant organisation has raised questions concerning the existence and development of the so-called "solidarist associations" and the regulations governing them from the point of view of their conformity with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. In particular the complainant has alleged that the solidarist associations are controlled by employers, aim to destroy the trade union movement and have given rise to a number of anti-union practices which, in recent years, have resulted in a considerable weakening of the trade union movement and the disappearance of many trade union organisations, presenting voluminous documentation to this effect. The Government has stressed that the solidarist movement is an expression of the constitutional right of association and that the growing popularity of the solidarist movement at the expense of the trade union movement is due in many cases to internal factors of trade union management which are beyond the competence of the Government. The latter denies the allegation that the solidarist associations have been set up by law as a means of manipulation by sectors outside the working class and that workers are obliged by law to belong to these associations. Lastly, the Government points out that section 8 of the Act respecting solidarist associations provides that such associations, their executive and administrative bodies and their legal representatives may not undertake any type of activity aimed at preventing or in any way impeding the establishment and operation of trade union and co-operative organisations, and that failure to comply with this provision is punishable by the dissolution of the association.
2. 441. The Committee observes that the 1984 Act on solidarist associations provides that such associations may be formed by 12 or more workers. Section 4 defines the associations as follows:
   • Solidarist associations are bodies of indeterminate duration which have their own legal personality and which, to achieve their purposes (the promotion of justice and social peace, harmony between employers and workers and the general advancement of their members), may acquire goods of all kinds, conclude any type of contract and undertake legal operations of any sort aimed at improving their members' social and economic conditions so as to raise their standard of living and enhance their dignity. To this effect they may undertake savings, credit and investment operations and any other financially viable operations. They may also organise programmes in the areas of housing, science, sport, art, education and recreation, cultural and spiritual matters and social and economic affairs and any other programme designed legally to promote co-operation between workers and between workers and their employers.
   • Section 18 of the Act lists the income of solidarist associations as coming from the following:
     • (a) The members' minimum monthly savings, the percentage of which shall be determined by the general meeting. The percentage may in no case be less than 3 per cent nor more than 5 per cent of the remuneration ... Members may save a higher sum or percentage voluntarily ... Members authorise their employer to deduct the relevant amount from their remuneration and to pay it to the association ...
     • (b) The employer's monthly contribution on behalf of his workers, which shall be determined by common agreement between the two sides in accordance with solidarist principles ...
   • 442. The Committee expresses its serious concern at the weakening of the trade union movement in Costa Rica and the considerable decline in the number of trade union organisations in recent years. It appears to the Committee on the evidence so far available that these phenomena are connected with the development of solidarist associations. The Committee emphasises in this connection the fundamental importance of the principle of tripartism advocated by the ILO, which presupposes organisations of workers and of employers which are independent of each other and of the public authorities. Given the importance of this principle, the Committee expresses the hope that the Government will take measures, in consultation with the trade union confederations, to create the necessary conditions for strengthening the independent trade union movement and for developing its activities in the social field.
3. 443. So as to be able to examine more thoroughly the important questions raised in the present case, the Committee requests the Government to supply urgently precise information on the points to which it has not yet fully replied, namely: the specific cases of anti-union discrimination and pressure on workers to join solidarist associations referred to by the ICFTU; the scope of the legal protection available to workers and union leaders who are affected by such action; the existence of financial support given by employers to the solidarist associations and the form of any such assistance; the amount of financial assistance given by the Government to the solidarist associations and any assistance given to the trade union organisations; the cases of plebiscites organised within undertakings and the reasons why such plebiscites are held; the legal nature and the contents of direct settlements, as well as the circumstances in which they can be concluded; the cases where direct settlements were concluded although a union and a collective agreement were in existence; the participation of trade unions in economic activities as compared with the role played therein by the solidarist associations; the functions which might be or in fact are exercised by solidarist associations in the industrial relations domain; the functions which unions might be able to exercise or in fact exercise in the management of social funds and facilities.