Definitive Report - Report No 278, June 1991

1. 21. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Workers' Force (FNT) dated 22 May 1990. The government replied in communications dated 11 April and 21 May 1991.
2. 22. Spain 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. 23. In its communication of 22 May 1990, the National Workers' Force (FNT) alleges that during the period from 1982 to 1989 part of the municipal police force, official vehicles and camouflaged vans, video cameras and cameras were used in the Madrid City Council to follow and monitor trade union representatives; moreover, information on such representatives and their activities were taken down in confidential records and they were summoned to state their ideological views.
2. 24. The FNT adds that, as a result of this, a special commission of inquiry was set up in the Madrid City Council, consisting of the councillor representing the municipal police and representatives of political parties and of the trade unions. A copy of its report is supplied by the FNT.
3. 25. The report of the commission of inquiry states in its conclusions that a camouflaged van was fitted with four license plates reserved for a small group of policemen and was only used for two hours, on an experimental basis, without the authorisation prescribed in the applicable statutes.
4. 26. According to the report of the commission of inquiry, six filing cabinets and two card indexes containing records of trade union activities within the municipal police (participation in demonstrations, surveillance of certain police staff by the Madrid municipal police, participation in strikes, etc.) between 1976 and 1988 are kept at police headquarters.
5. 27. The FNT specifies that the circumstances complained of were used in practice to prejudice, hinder and monitor certain trade union leaders.

B. The Government's reply

1. 28. The Government states in its communications dated 15 April and 21 May 1991 that, although the Madrid City Council has not commented on this complaint, the fact that the complaint is couched in such broad and general terms and refers to such an extensive period (1982-89) constitutes a serious obstacle to setting out its observations and drawing conclusions. Thus, the complaint denounces general activities but does not refer to specific facts, places, dates and persons involved, which would make it possible to compare the allegations with the actual situation, using the evidence normally provided by documents, experts or witnesses. Moreover, certain intentions and objectives are assumed, which by their very nature are difficult if not impossible to prove.
2. 29. The Government adds that there is no more reliable proof than the report of the commission of inquiry set up within the City Council which, according to the complainant organisation, is comprised of representatives of political parties and trade unions, which cannot but lead one to believe in the impartiality of its conclusions.
3. 30. According to the commission of inquiry, as regards the "use - between 1982 and 1989, according to the denunciation - of official vehicles and camouflaged vans to carry out surveillance of trade union representatives", "work on the preparation of the van was carried out from November 1988 to July 1989". According to the terms used in the report of the commission of inquiry, there appears to have been only one vehicle which, according to the commission, was not used except on one occasion, as an experiment, for two hours. As regards confidential records and the surveillance of trade union representatives, the commission of inquiry recognises the existence of records on trade union activities in the municipal police force and the surveillance of members of the police while off-duty. Lastly, the commission does not refer at all to the use of video cameras or cameras, nor is there any other mention of such actions apart from that made by the complainant itself.
4. 31. The Government states that it is not aware that any of the persons allegedly affected referred to in the conclusions of the commission have taken any type of action before the administrative or judicial authorities as regards what is termed "confidential records". Neither is it aware that the Ombudsman, with whom the complainant organisation lodged a complaint, has instituted any legal proceedings as regards the circumstances denounced. The Government expresses its repulsion concerning any act which could involve a weakening of trade union rights, such as the creation of confidential records or the surveillance of trade union representatives, but states that it is unaware of any such behaviour.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 32. In the present complaint, the complainant organisation has alleged the existence of confidential files with information on the activities of trade union representatives and the use of official vehicles, camouflaged vans, and video cameras and cameras to follow and monitor trade union representatives in the Madrid City Council.
2. 33. As regards the confidential files containing information on the activities of trade union representatives, the Committee will not pronounce itself on this subject, as it concerns trade union activities in the municipal police and Article 9(1) of Convention No. 87 provides that "the extent to which the guarantees provided for in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws or regulations". Under this provision it is clear that the International Labour Conference intended to leave it to each State to decide on the extent to which it was desirable to grant members of the armed forces and of the police the rights covered by the Convention, which means that States having ratified the Convention are not required to grant these rights to the said categories of persons (see 145th Report, Case No. 778 (France), para. 19).
3. 34. As regards the other allegations, the Committee shares the Government's view that they are too broad and general and cover an extensive period (1982-89) and at no time refer to specific facts, places, dates or persons involved. In the Committee's opinion, this not only makes it impossible in practice for the Government to reply specifically, but also runs counter to the standards laid down in the Committee's procedure, according to which complaints must refer to "specific infringements of trade union rights" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, 3rd edition, 1985, para. 43) and relate to matters "directly affecting" the complainant organisation (see Digest, para. 34), a point which cannot be determined in the present case, given the total lack of specific information on the trade union representatives alleged to have suffered prejudice. In addition, the Committee would point out that, despite the fact that it was invited to supply additional information, the complainant failed to do so. In these circumstances the Committee considers that the case does not call for further examination.