Definitive Report - Report No 104, 1968

1. 32. The complaint of the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.) is contained in a letter of 28 April 1967, sent directly to the I.L.O. This complaint having been passed on to the Government, the latter submitted its observations on the matter in a letter dated 14 October 1967.
2. 33. The Dominican Republic has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
3. 34. The W.F.T.U makes a certain number of allegations which will be examined separately below.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Dismissal of Workers and Trade Unionists
  35. 35 The complainants allege that dozens of trade union leaders in the sugar industry have been dismissed and more than 10,000 workers have lost their jobs; they further allege that in the textile industry at Las Minas all the trade union leaders of the industry have been dismissed, together with a hundred workers. According to the complainants, trade union leaders have also been dismissed in breweries, flour mills, sack and rope factories, the Barcelo rum factory, a spaghetti factory, the Coca Cola concern and the salt and gypsum mines. The W.F.T.U also alleges that 273 workers in a cement factory, including seven trade union leaders, have been dismissed without being paid the statutory compensation.
  36. 36 In its observations the Government states that the payrolls in the state undertakings contained hundreds of non-existent workers and a large number of employees for whom there was no work, which, the Government specifies, made it impossible to run these undertakings without considerable loss. The Government points out, nevertheless, that this situation has been remedied in the state sugar mills, which have now been reorganised. With regard to the dismissals in the other undertakings mentioned by the W.F.T.U, in particular in the cement factory, the Government points out that the Secretary of State for Labour does not intervene in the management of industry and that in labour disputes his role is confined to that of arbitrator; the Government stresses that it is the courts which give final rulings on such matters.
  37. 37 The explanations furnished by the Government indicate that the dismissals which have taken place were necessary, partly in order to shut down uneconomic undertakings and partly because of labour disputes in which the parties concerned could have appealed to the courts in order to secure redress of the wrongs they claim to have suffered. It does not appear that the dismissals in question constitute a measure intended to infringe freedom of association; it seems to have been a question of wide-scale dismissals in which trade union leaders happened to be among the workers dismissed.
  38. 38 In these circumstances, considering that the complainants have not supplied sufficient proof that the purpose of the dismissals was to infringe freedom of association, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to the Setting Up of a Government-Controlled Trade Union
  39. 39 The complainants allege that the Government formed a parallel dockers' union in Santo Domingo, consisting largely of members of the police and of the army, with a view to carrying out intimidating manoeuvres against the dockers' union, POASI, " which represents the workers in the port ". The complainants see this action as intolerable interference in trade union activities.
  40. 40 In its observations the Government states that this allegation is groundless. The trade union referred to is the STAPI, which was formed before the present Government took office; it is composed of dockworkers who are not members of the POASI " and who do not subscribe to its policies ".
  41. 41 In view of the somewhat general nature of the complainants' allegations, which are supported by no specific facts, and having noted the Government's explanations, the Committee feels it should recommend the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to the Eviction of the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) from the Premises It Was Occupying
  42. 42 It is alleged that the Government has promulgated Decree No. 977 evicting the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) as well as two federations " and more than ten trade unions " from the Workers' Social Centre.
  43. 43 In its observations the Government states that Decree No. 977 of 11 February 1967, by virtue of which the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) was evicted from the premises it was occupying, is based on the fact that these premises had been occupied exclusively by the above-mentioned Confederation although they actually belong to the State. The Government considered that these premises were being occupied to the detriment of the other labour Confederations and that, moreover, they were being used for purposes unrelated to the defence of the workers' interests. The Government points out that Decree No. 977 specifies that these premises " may be used only for recreational, cultural or sports activities and not as a headquarters of any one trade union, federation, Confederation or other association ".
  44. 44 While recognising that the eviction measure to which the National Dominican Confederation of Workers (FOUPSA-CESITRADO) was subjected was apparently directed specifically against this organisation, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it had reasons for its action, that these reasons are specified in the observations and that they relate to what the authorities considered to be misuse of the premises. Since the premises in question belong to the State, it appears to the Committee that the Government should be free to dispose of them as it sees fit, provided, of course, that its action is not intended to favour or discriminate against any one particular trade union organisation, a policy which the Government is not alleged to have followed in this case.
  45. 45 In the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case calls for no further examination on its part.
• Allegations relating to Action Taken against Trade Union Leaders
  46. 46 The complainants allege that the Government has taken action against the trade union leaders who were most active in defending the workers' rights and they cite the names of Messrs. Julio de Peña Valdez and Fernando de la Rosa.
  47. 47 The Government states in its observations that the allegations concerning the trade union leaders mentioned by the W.F.T.U are without foundation " since the persons in question travel unhindered all over the Republic and are free to leave and return to the country when they wish ".