Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 218, Noviembre 1982

1. 316. The complaint is contained in communications of the Sole Confederation of workers, dated 15 March and 26 April 1982. The Government replied in communications dated 3 May and 13 August 1982.
2. 317. Costa Rica has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1948 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 318. In its communication of 15 March 1982 the Sole Confederation of Workers (CUT) alleged that the Trade Union Association of Water Supply and Sewage Workers (ASTRAA) was violently ejected from its premises with the intervention of the police.
2. 319. The CUT then refers in its communication of 26 April 1982 to the collective dispute that arose in the Chiriqui Land Company and PAIS, S.A. banana plantations in September 1981. The complainant alleges that on 8 September 1981 a totally unsuitable collective agreement was signed between the Chiriqui Land Company Workers' Union (SITRACHIRI) and the undertaking and that, in violation of the provisions of section 27ó(c) of the Labour Code this agreement was not submitted to the general meeting for final approval. The complainant adds that in the face of this situation the workers sought the assistance of the Union of Agricultural Workers of Limón (UTRAL) in denouncing the collective agreement that had been signed - which it described as a management manoeuvre since, according to the complainant, the SITRACHIRI was set up by the Chiriqui Land Company - and in getting a new collective agreement signed which would really settle the problems created by the difficult conditions of work and life of the workers. From then on workers began leaving the SITRACHIRI in large numbers and at the same time joining the UTRAL, whose membership now includes 400 out of the 500 workers of the Chiriqui Land Company. Despite this, the company refused to grant the workers' requests that the union dues deducted from their wages be handed over to the UTRAL.
3. 320. At about the same time, continues the complainant, the PAIS, S.A. undertaking put pressure on its workers to sign a direct settlement which disregarded the workers' interests, as a result of which large numbers of workers joined the UTRAL and called for the negotiation of a genuine collective agreement. In the end, the undertaking imposed the direct settlement.
4. 321. The complainant points out that on 13 January 1982, having received no communication from either the Chiriqui Land Company or PAIS, S.A. nor from the authorities since the dispute began, a strike was called and received the support of 60 per cent of the workforce it all the plantations belonging to the Chiriqui Land Company and PALS, S.A. According to the complainant, both before and after the strike began the following incidents occurred, which it considers violations of trade union rights:
   • - days before the strike was called, the plantations were occupied and controlled by three companies of the civil guard; 43 workers were detained, as were the members of a CUT delegation who had travelled to plantation 97 for the purposes of familiarising themselves with the facts and offering their solidarity. According to the complainant, the civil guard detained the trade union leaders Luis Carlos Montero, Jesús Garbanzo, Jesús Campos, Felipe Rodriguez, Herminio Dover and Mauricio Solana, following a skirmish with the civil guard. The complainant does admit, however, that some of the workers possessed small calibre weapons which they used for hunting in the region. Furthermore, in plantation 96, after the workers had held a meeting with their leaders, the latter together with the majority of the workers were detained. The complainant declares that the total number of trade union leaders and workers detained amounted to 250;
   • - at 10 a.m. on 19 January 1982 a worker named Narciso Morales Valdelomar was shot and later died. One of his children, a daughter aged 5, had her leg shattered by a gunshot and Juan Luis Aguilar, a negotiator and former executive of SITRACHIRI, was also wounded;
   • - the civil guard forced striking workers on several occasions to return to their work posts, and the homes of many of them were broken into with, in some cases, the doors being forced with the butts of guns;
   • - as a result of the strike, foreign workers, with and without residence permits, were expelled from the country and many workers were dismissed. According to the complainant the civil guard also detained a delegation of trade union leaders comprising Dr. Marielos Giralt Bermúdez (Vice-President of the CUT), Ignacio Robles Oropeza (General Secretary of the Workers' Union of the University of Costa Rica) and other trade union leaders who were bringing food to relieve the inhuman situation in which the dismissed workers found themselves. These persons have been able to confirm that the conditions in which they and the others were detained were extremely distressing (minimum conditions of existence, psychological torture and sexual assault).
5. 322. The complainant concludes by pointing out that criminal charges have been brought against trade union leaders and workers who participated in the strike.

B. The Government's reply

1. 323. In its communication of 3 May 1982 the Government declared that when the General Secretary of the ASTRAA notified the office of the Minister of Labour and Social Security of the cancellation of permission to use the trade union premises assigned to the ASTRAA by the management of the Costa Rican Institute of Water Supply and Sewerage, the Labour Inspectorate was ordered to carry out an investigation. This investigation found that there had been violations of Convention No. 87 and in particular management interference in the organisation and conduct of trade union activities. The Government adds that as the management of the Institute had paid no heed to the request of the labour inspector that the ASTRAA be permitted to use the premises and be granted similar facilities to those it had previously enjoyed, the Minister of Labour ordered the Labour Inspectorate to institute legal proceedings with a view to obtaining the imposition of the sanctions provided for in cases of non-observance of the labour laws, the outcome of which will be communicated to the Committee. However, the Government states that in the light of the investigations carried out by the Labour Inspectorate it can be concluded that the civil guard were not called in to eject the trade unionists from the premises.
2. 324. As regards the collective disputes that arose in the Chiriqui Lard Company and PAIS, S.A. undertakings, the Government encloses a communication from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in which it points out that in January 1982 there was a physical confrontation between a democratic trade union and a leftist trade union and that the Ministry is not, competent to deal with the allegations concerning confrontations with the police, detention of trade union leaders and other acts of violence, or the acts of sabotage denounced by the management. As to the validity of the collective agreement concluded between the Chiriqui Land Company and SITRACHIRI, the Government states that it was legally registered after the Ministry's legal assistant had declared that it complied with the labour provisions in force. The Government adds that, according to the legislation in force, case law and doctrine, it is not possible for the Ministry to intervene at the request of a trade union body other than the one signing the collective agreement in question with a view to obtaining the management's agreement to negotiate a new draft collective agreement. Nevertheless, continues the Government, the point of view expressed by the complainant organisation in declaring the collective agreement in force to be a "pseudo agreement" is very subjective. Proof of this is the fact, for example, that the basic wage rate approved in this collective agreement at the time of its registration was the highest in all the country's banana plantations.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 325. The Committee notes that this case refers, on the one hand, to the cancellation of permission to use the trade union premises of the Trade Union Association of Water Supply and Sewage Workers (ASTRAA), and, on the other hand, to the causes and consequences of the collective dispute that arose in the Chiriqui Land Company and PAIS, S.A. undertakings.
2. 326. As regards the cancellation of permission to use the ASTRAA trade union premises, the Committee notes that the management of the Costa Rican Institute of Water Supply and Sewerage ignored the request of the Labour Inspectorate to permit the ASTRAA to use the trade union premises previously available to it once the Inspectorate found that the cancellation of such permission was an infringement of Convention No. 87. The Committee also notes that the Minister of Labour ordered the Labour Inspectorate to institute legal proceedings against the Institute with a view to obtaining the imposition of the penalties in force for non-observance of the labour laws. In these circumstances, the Committee can only urge the Government to continue to do all in its power to ensure that, as soon as possible, the ASTRAA is enabled to use its trade union premises once again and to request it to inform the Committee of the outcome of the proceedings instituted against the Costa Rican Institute of Water Supply and Sewerage.
3. 327. As regards the matters which, according to the allegations, gave rise to the collective dispute in the Chiriqui Land Company (invalidity of the collective agreement signed on 8 September 1981 and failure of the undertaking to respond to the request to sign a new agreement), the Committee notes the information supplied by the complainant and the Government and observes that, according to the latter, the collective agreement signed on 8 September 1981 conformed to the labour provisions in force. The Committee considers in this regard that it cannot form conclusions as to the validity of the said collective agreement, not only because it does not have sufficient information, but also because of the time that elapsed between the date on which the collective agreement was signed (8 September 1981) and that on which the complainant formulated the allegations (26 April 1982), a period of more than six months during which the collective agreement had in principle been in effect without apparently any of the parties having appealed to the courts with a view to contesting its validity. In this regard, the Committee recalls, as it has pointed out on previous occasions, that recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in his undertaking or the most representative of these unions is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment at the level of the undertaking. The Committee has already insisted that the competent authorities must take appropriate conciliatory measures with a view to obtaining such recognition by the employer concerned.,
4. 328. As regards the allegations concerning the consequences of the collective dispute and the strike in the Chiriqui Land Company and PAIS, S.A. undertakings, the Committee notes that it has already made recommendations on this matter in Case No. 11082 and consequently refers to the conclusions made during the examination of that case, in which, in particular, it deeply deplored the death of the worker, Narciso Morales Valdelomar which occurred during the dispute.