Interim Report - Report No 76, 1964

1. 368. By a communication dated 27 February 1964 the Golfito Workers' Union presented a complaint against the Government of Costa Rica alleging violation of trade union rights in that country. Following communication of the complaint to the Government, a reply was received by note dated 25 April 1964.
2. 369. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning Arrest of a Trade Union Leader, House Search and Confiscation of Trade Union Literature
  370. 370 The complainants allege in their communication that the Golfito Workers' Union is endeavouring at present to obtain signatures of workers to a set of petitions to be submitted to the labour courts and that this was the reason why the Government as employer initiated systematic repression of the organisation. The fiscal police, whose function is to deal with such cases, is alleged to be making searches of workers' homes and confiscating trade union literature in their possession. It is stated that the home of the worker Jesús Maria Alpizar was searched without any court order and without any suspicion of tax offences and that 25 trade union pamphlets in his possession were confiscated. It is further stated that the trade union leader Guillermo Fuentes was arrested without any grounds at the same time, and that the fiscal police authorities of Puerto González Viquez acted in both cases.
  371. 371 The Government's reply states that the fiscal police is authorised to take action not only in respect of tax offences but also in the case of other offences against ordinary legal provisions. Executive Decree No. 37 of 1954 is in force, by which the publication, importation, sale, exhibition or circulation of leaflets, magazines, books or any other reading matter, whether printed or otherwise, that express communist views or leanings is prohibited. Under Act No. 4 of 1923 one of the functions of the fiscal police is to assist the authorities and other public officials in discharging their functions. Therefore the intervention of the fiscal police with regard to the offence constituted by circulation of communist propaganda is stated to be perfectly legitimate and within the powers of the fiscal police. With regard to the complainants' specific allegations, the Government states that Mr. Guillermo Fuentes Ortega was arrested on suspicion of having communist propaganda in his possession but that he was released 15 minutes later. It is further stated that the home of the worker Jesús Maria Alpizar was not searched and that no confiscation was made.
  372. 372 The Committee notes that, according to the information supplied by the Government, the fiscal police is within its legal powers in confiscating literature of a particular political character. That is to say, its function is not restricted to dealing with tax offences. With regard to the complainants' specific allegations, the Government denies that the home of Mr. Jesús Maria Alpizar was searched without court order or that any trade union pamphlets were confiscated from him, and it also states that Mr. Guillermo Fuentes was released immediately after being arrested on suspicion of the same offence.
  373. 373 In these circumstances the Committee considers that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence in support of their complaint that trade union rights have been violated, and recommends that the Governing Body, noting that the trade union leader Guillermo Fuentes was immediately released, should decide that this aspect of the case does not call for any further examination.
• Allegations concerning the Intervention of the Authorities at Trade Union Meetings
  374. 374 The complainants allege in their communication that the fiscal authorities have attempted to interfere with workers' meetings in the Coto Valley at which sets of petitions were discussed and signed. This is alleged specifically to have occurred at Estates 62 and 63. The Government makes no reference to these allegations in its reply.
  375. 375 In numerous cases in the past the Committee has emphasised the importance which it has always attached to the fact that freedom from government interference in the holding of trade union meetings constitutes an essential element of trade union rights and to the principle that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. The Governing Body has already, on a previous occasion, drawn the attention of the Government of Costa Rica to the importance which it attaches to the right of plantation workers to hold trade union meetings.
  376. 376 In view of the above, and with regard to the request submitted by the complainants in this connection, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its observations on these allegations and to decide in the meantime to postpone examination of this aspect of the case.
• Discriminatory Action against Trade Unionists
  377. 377 The complainants further allege that the Costa Rica Banana Company is dismissing workers who are known for their activities in the defence of the workers' rights and who are allowing trade union leaders to live in their homes. They further allege that the Government has set in motion propaganda machinery by issuing pamphlets insulting trade union leaders. The Government makes no reference to these statements in its reply.
  378. 378 The Committee has always attached considerable importance to the provisions of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by Costa Rica, providing that the workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and that their organisations should enjoy similar protection against any interference by the employers.
  379. 379 In the present case, however, the allegations are stated in extremely vague terms and the complainants make no precise reference to any such act of discrimination as they denounce. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.