Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 284, Novembre 1992

1. 82. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Union of Press Workers (SNTP) dated 27 February 1992. This organisation supplied additional information in a communication dated 30 March 1992. The Government replied in a communication dated 24 August 1992.
2. 83. Venezuela 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. 84. In its communications of 27 February and 30 March 1992, the National Union of Press Workers (SNTP) alleges that on the occasion of the national strike called by press workers to protest against censorship, to support freedom of expression and defend democracy, the Minister of Labour violated freedom of association by threatening media workers and sending in the National Guard to suppress their legitimate protests.
2. 85. In particular, the complainant alleges that anti-union sentiments lay behind the dismissals of Mario Villegas, the former Secretary-General of the SNTP and the trade union delegate of El Nacional; Francisco Solórzano, Secretary-General of the National College of Journalists of the Federal District, also an El Nacional trade union delegate; Luis Bazán García, Secretary-General of the College of Journalists of the State of Portuguesa and another six leaders from the same State. The complainant further alleges that the Venezuelan Press Corps acted in such a way as to impede trade union leaders' access to undertakings, thus violating clauses of the collective agreement and the rights of trade union organisations.

B. The Government's reply

1. 86. In its communication dated 24 August 1992, the Government states that on 4 February 1992 there was an attempted coup d'état against the duly elected Government, led by soldiers who through their actions violated the Constitution and national legislation. On 5 February 1992 there was even an attempt on the life of the constitutional President of the Republic.
2. 87. The Government adds that it believed it was duty-bound to declare a state of emergency and, in accordance with the Constitution, to suspend constitutional guarantees as a result of the military and civilian insubordination in the principal States of the country. These guarantees included the right to freedom of expression and the right to strike. The Government states that in the circumstances, the complainant - as well as other trade unions - had no right to call a national strike in the graphic arts industry until the Decree suspending constitutional rights had been revoked, a condition which had not been respected by the complainant organisation.
3. 88. The Government further states that the trade union leaders and trade unionists who had been dismissed had been reinstated in their posts or had voluntarily accepted due compensation.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 89. The Committee notes the Government's explanations concerning the suspension of the right to strike (in particular, concerning the prohibition of the national strike called in the graphic arts industry) and the alleged restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. It observes that the Government's decisions had been taken in the context of a state of emergency called in accordance with the National Constitution as a result of an abortive coup d'état against the Government and an attempt on the life of the President of the Republic.
2. 90. In this respect, the Committee has on numerous occasions considered that a general prohibition of strikes can only be justified in the event of an acute national emergency (Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 423); the same applies to the restrictions on freedom of expression.
3. 91. In these circumstances, given that the restrictions on the right to strike and on freedom of expression were imposed against the backdrop of an attempted coup d'état against the constitutional Government, the Committee considers that the Government has not violated freedom of association. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the dismissed trade unionists have been reinstated in their posts or have voluntarily accepted due compensation.