Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 217, Junio 1982

1. 471. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint of violation of trade union rights in Chile in a communication dated 28 February 1982. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 21 April 1982.
2. 472. Chile has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 473. In its complaint the ICFTU alleges that, at the request of the national body responsible for anti-monopoly supervision, the High Commission against monopolies (an administrative body) adopted on 13 October 1981 Resolution No. 105 which imposes on the National Confederation of Leather, Footwear and Allied Industries Workers and four of its leaders fines of 800,000 and 80,000 pesos per person, respectively. In case of failure to pay, the leaders will be imprisoned, one day in prison corresponding to a fine of 1,555.5 pesos.
2. 474. The ICFTU explains that at the beginning of 1981 almost all the undertakings in the leather and footwear sector were in the middle of collective bargaining. Because of the importance of these negotiations, the Confederation leaders were advising the unions in the drawing up of draft agreements and were taking part in the negotiations as advisers. Consequently, the drafts which were, presented in the leather sector were more or less all worded in the same manner. According to the ICFTU, the only interest that the sanctioned trade union leaders had was to defend legitimately the rights acquired by their constituents within the provisions of the "Social Plan".
3. 475. The grounds of the conviction are based on the fact that the trade unions of workers in leather undertakings presented draft collective agreements having an identical formal structure and: similar claims due to the role, of adviser played by the Confederation and its four leaders. These persons were fined because the socio-economic situation had not been taken into account and because the leaders of the first-degree unions had limited themselves to receiving the drafts already drawn up by another body (namely the Confederation) which amounted to a restriction on their freedom of competition.
4. 476. The factual situation is considered to be contrary to legislative Decrees Nos. 211, 2756 and 2756. In fact, the national body responsible for anti-monopoly supervision considers that, according to these provisions, collective bargaining must exclusively take place within the undertaking taking into account the socio-economic realities of each enterprise. The ICFTU considers that the sentencing of trade union leaders for having advised first-degree unions reduces the capability of these smaller unions to bargain collectively, which implies a restriction on freedom of association.

B. The Government's reply

1. 477. In its reply the Government explains that an action was lodged against the National Confederation of Leather, Footwear and Allied Industries Workers for monopolistic practices contrary to free competition in economic activities. Proceedings ensued in which the accused trade union organisation enjoyed all the rights of defence.
2. 478. The Anti-Monopoly Commission, composed of a Supreme Court judge, two deans from the University of Santiago and two heads of departments, is an independent governmental tribunal. It handed down a judgement which acknowledged that the prosecution's action was well-founded and held that the behaviour of the trade union organisation had been contrary to free competition in the economic activities of the country. The trade union organisation lodged an appeal before the Supreme Court and the matter is now pending.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 479. The Committee notes that this matter originated in a restriction imposed on federations and Confederations against participating in collective bargaining, which should take place at the level of the undertaking. In fact, it appears that under sections 4 and 7 of Legislative Decree No. 2758 of 1979 bargaining only takes place at the level of the undertaking and federations and Confederations cannot negotiate collectively.
2. 480. During its examination of the Chilean trade union legislation, the Committee had recalled that the denial of the right to strike and the right to collective bargaining to federations and Confederations could give rise to serious difficulties in the development of industrial relations, particularly in the case of small unions which, on account of their limited strength and untrained leadership, may not be able by themselves to further and defend the interests of their members in an effective manner. As the Government had stated that monopolistic practices were having a bad effect on the non-unionised workers, small unions, the unemployed, consumers and the economy of the country in general, the Committee had pointed out that where clauses in certain collective agreements appeared to be in opposition to the considerations of the general interest, a procedure could be envisaged by which the attention of the parties is drawn to those considerations so that they can undertake a new examination, it being understood that they are to remain free in the making of their final decision.
3. 481. Moreover, the Government had stated that the new legislation does not preclude the participation of federations and Confederations in voluntary collective negotiations. It added that these organisations may be of great value in training officials of first-degree trade unions and assisting them prior to or during negotiations. It would therefore appear that the interpretation which has been given to the legislation on collective bargaining is even more restrictive than that which was envisaged at the outset by the Government, since in the present case the accused Confederation and four of its leaders were sentenced to pay severe fines whereas all that they had done was to advise the first-degree trade unions without bargaining directly.
4. 482. The Committee accordingly considers that it must insist on the importance of the principle that federations and Confederations must be able to bargain collectively or, if they so wish, participate in the negotiations in which their affiliate organisations are engaged. The Committee notes that this matter is at present pending before the Supreme Court. It expresses the fire hope that the penalties handed down in the first instance on the National Confederation of Leather, Footwear and Allied Industries porkers and on four of its leaders will be lifted. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this affair.