Definitive Report - Report No 133, 1972

1. 33. This case has already been examined by the Committee, at its session in February 1972, at which time it submitted to the Governing Body an interim report contained in paragraphs 212 to 234 of its 129th Report. The Committee's 129th Report was adopted by the Governing Body at its 185th Session (February-March 1972).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 34. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. The Homoeopathy Workers' Union, founded in 1969, was duly registered by the Trade Unions Office of the Ministry of Labour after the provisions of its statutes relating to the organisation's funds had been amended in compliance with a request made by the office in question. The Union appears to have functioned normally until April 1971, when it was informed by the Ministry that, on the basis of information furnished by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ministry had made application to the courts for the Union's judicial dissolution. The information supplied by the College of Physicians and Surgeons was to the effect that up to 1970 only three persons had been authorised by the College to practise homoeopathy in Costa Rica. Under the law of that country the practice of homoeopathy and certain other special branches of medicine is subject to such authorisation being granted.
2. 35. Furthermore, under the terms of sections 273 and 281 of the Labour Code (as amended), firstly, a workers' organisation or an organisation of persons exercising a profession independently may not be formed with fewer than 20 members, and, secondly, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare is empowered to apply to the labour courts for the winding up of any occupational organisation which fails to comply with this provision. Since, according to the Government, only three medical practitioners had been authorised to practise homoeopathy, it appeared that the minimum membership requirement for the establishment of an organisation of persons practising homoeopathy independently as a profession had not been fulfilled.
3. 36. At its February 1972 session the Committee pointed out that in many countries laws and regulations have been enacted, in the public interest, for the control of the exercise of various professional activities. Such rules, noted the Committee, are of necessity stringent in order to ensure that the general public may have adequate protection against persons who may seek to exercise professional activities without the qualifications, or authorisation by the supervisory professional body, which may be necessary before doing so. The Committee observed that in Costa Rica the medical profession is governed by laws and regulations of this kind, and that it was these provisions and the law governing the establishment of trade unions which the Government had invoked as justification for its application to the courts for the dissolution of a union consisting, apparently, of three properly qualified and duly authorised homoeopaths and a number of other persons who had not received proper authorisation to practise this branch of medicine.
4. 37. The court action brought by the Ministry being still sub judice at the time when the Committee last examined the case, the Committee, considering that the information furnished therein might be useful to it in assessing the merits of the case, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to supply a copy of the judgement when it was pronounced, together with the grounds adduced therefor.
5. 38. In response to this request, which was conveyed to it on 14 March 1972, the Government, by a communication dated 19 July 1972, has supplied the text of the judgement pronounced by the court of first instance as well as that of the judgement pronounced on appeal.
6. 39. The judgement of the First Labour Court of San José orders the dissolution of the complaining organisation. The grounds adduced from this ruling are stated to be the following facts, considered to be proved: (a) that the occupational organisation known as the " Homoeopathy Workers' Union of Costa Rica " was registered with the Trade Unions Office of the Ministry of Labour; (b) that the College of Physicians and Surgeons objected to registration of the organisation concerned on the ground that none of the members of its executive committee was authorised to practise homoeopathy in Costa Rica under the terms of the law whereby the College was established; (c) that the statutes of the organisation in question mention, as one of its aims, " to strive to obtain official recognition for its members in their special field, namely that of homoeopathic medicine "; (d) that among the aims of the organisation is also to be found the fundamental intention " to enrol all the homoeopaths in the country as members of the Union ", their admission being subject to the requirement that they " practise within the field of activity covered by this Union " and to the condition that " the applicant shall be examined by a board made up of members of the Union, practising homoeopathy, in homoeopathy and such other subjects as the Executive Committee may direct, with a view to satisfying the board not only as to his knowledge of homoeopathy, but also as to his general culture "; (e) that there exists no national or foreign instructional establishment, recognised by the Ministry of Education, which awards diplomas, decrees or certificates in homoeopathy.
7. 40. The judgement also declares that, considering that " the situation which prevailed during the preliminary inquiries into the case has remained unchanged, as is shown by the fact that the organisation involved has not attempted to challenge the findings which were reached following the inquiries, under sections 270, 280 and 395 (c) of the Labour Code, it behoves this court to dissolve the body known as the Homoeopathy Workers' Union of Costa Rica, without condemning it to pay the costs of the action ".
8. 41. On appeal, the Supreme Labour Tribunal confirmed the judgement of the court of first instance for the same reasons as those invoked by that court.
9. 42. It is clear both from the text of the judgements supplied by the Government and from the explanations given by the Government that the persons whom the complaining union claims to represent are not-with the apparent exception of three of them-entitled, under the statutory provisions in force in this respect, to practise the ancillary branch of medical science with which the present case is concerned. Moreover, since only three persons are authorised to practise homoeopathy in Costa Rica, and the law of the country requires that there be at least 20 in order to found a union of workers exercising a profession independently, it seems that the complaining union has not fulfilled the requirements which it must fulfil under the various national laws and regulations, taken together, in order to be eligible for recognition.