Informe provisional - Informe núm. 254, Marzo 1988

1. 493. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 25 June 1987. The ICFTU submitted further allegations in a communcation dated 26 October 1987. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 25 January 1988.
2. 494. The Government has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 495. The complainant organisation alleges in its communication of 25 June 1987 that, in order to prevent the seafarers from exercising their right to strike, the Government ordered troops of the Brazilian Navy to occupy all ports and to prevent the strikers from leaving their place of work. When the workers of the Petrobras oil refineries called a one-day work stoppage, the Brazilian army and the federal and military police of several States occupied the refineries with combat vehicles. This situation occurred at a time when the workers had lost 60 per cent of their purchasing power as a result of the Government's wage policies.
2. 496. In its communication of 26 October 1987, the complainant alleges that Mauro Pires, leader of the Union of Vehicle Drivers and Allied Workers of San Andrés, was murdered on 4 September 1987; that trade union leader José Barbosa dos Santos was attacked by two individuals who shot at him from a car, though he was unharmed; and that union leader Paulo Pereira received telephone calls threatening his life. A possible explanation of these occurrences is the existence of an armed paramilitary group set up by employers to eliminate the militant members of the Union of Vehicle Drivers and Allied Workers.

B. The Government's reply

1. 497. The Government states in its communication of 25 January 1988 that the activities carried out by petroleum workers and seafarers have been defined by law as essential services inasmuch as the country depends on them for its supply of fuel and food and that, in the case of seafarers and port workers, their activities are a matter of national security.
2. 498. The Government states in the specific case of the Petrobras Company, where there was an "undeclared" strike in which the workers remained at their posts and paralysed all activities within the enterprise, the army was called in to protect the enterprise's assets (which are public assets given that Petrobras is a semi-public enterprise) and to guarantee employees' access to their place of work. There were however no incidents involving trade union leaders or strikers.
3. 499. As regards the seafarers, the Brazilian Navy was called in to protect port facilities, which are public property, to ensure the flow of supplies to the cities and, again, to guarantee employees' access to their places of work, since separate agreements have been concluded with certain enterprises. Here again, no incidents occurred. The Government points out that the strike was declared illegal by the labour court.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 500. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges that strikes which had been called or undertaken in the petroleum sector and in the port and maritime sector were repressed by the military occupation of the plant and facilities concerned.
2. 501. The Government claims that these activities were essential and that the intervention of the army and navy was designed to protect the enterprises' plant and facilities, to ensure the flow of supplies to the cities and to guarantee freedom to work. The Committee notes that the legislation in force, and specifically section 1 of Legislative Decree No. 1632 of 4 August 1978, provides that, in the interests of national security, the essential services in which strikes are prohibited by the Constitution include petroleum services and loading and unloading of supplies.
3. 502. The Committee has stated on numerous occasions (see, for example, 226th Report, Case No. 1166 (Honduras), para. 343) that, as one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests, the right to strike may be denied or subject to major restrictions only in the public service or essential services in the strict sense of the term. It has added that the concept of public servants should be confined to those acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority and that essential services should be interpreted as referring to those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; otherwise, if the legislation defines the public service or essential services too broadly, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in those sectors would become meaningless. In the present case, the workers in the petroleum enterprises and those involved in loading and unloading are not public officials in the sense set forth above, nor do they perform an essential service in the strict sense of the term (see, for example, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, General Survey by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report III (Part 4B), International Labour Conference, 69th Session, 1983, para. 214, and 233rd Report of the Committee, Case No. 1225 (Brazil), para. 668). In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the prohibition of strike action in the petroleum sector and in the ports (loading and unloading sectors) provided for in Legislative Decree No. 1632 of 4 August 1978 is contrary to the principles of freedom of association.
4. 503. Finally, the Committee observes that the Government has not replied to the allegations contained in the ICFTU's communication of 26 October 1987 concerning, inter alia, the assassination of the trade union leader Mauro Pires.