Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 105, 1968

1. 148. When the Committee last examined this case at its February 1965 session it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body in paragraphs 65 to 75 of its 82nd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at its 162nd Session (May-June 1965).
2. 149. In a communication dated 19 January 1967 the National Federation of Schoolteachers (FENAMA) made fresh allegations relating to the case. The text of this communication was transmitted to the Government by a letter dated 13 March 1967.
3. 150. The Government has forwarded certain observations by a communication received on 24 April 1968.
4. 151. The Dominican Republic 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to Discriminatory and Retaliatory Action against the National Federation of Schoolteachers
  152. 152 In its original complaint of 1963 FENAMA maintained, in substance, that a number of members of the teaching profession had been discharged from their posts for political reasons and replaced by adherents to a particular party, that the Government had openly given support to a rival trade union organisation to the detriment of the complaining organisation, and that reprisals had been taken against 51 FENAMA leaders in the form of dismissal from their posts.
  153. 153 When it first examined the case the Committee took the view that the charges concerning the dismissal of teaching staff for political reasons, and interference by party authorities in the teaching world contrary to the security of employment of schoolteachers as guaranteed by national legislation, constituted a problem which was not within its province. This was not considered by the Committee to be the case, however, as regards the allegations concerning dismissal of FENAMA leaders as a measure of reprisal and as regards the allegations according to which the Government had favoured a particular trade union organisation while discrediting the complaining organisation, whose petitions it had neither answered nor heeded.
  154. 154 At its February 1965 session the Committee pointed out that it had always upheld the principle that workers should enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, as laid down in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
  155. 155 As regards the alleged interference by the Government in favouring another rival trade union organisation while discrediting FENAMA, and in not heeding its complaints, the Committee drew attention to the importance it attached to the principle embodied in Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), to the effect that workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
  156. 156 At the same session the Committee took note of a statement made by the Government in a letter dated 5 February 1965 to the effect that the Government maintained normal relations with FENAMA and neither impeded nor interfered with the carrying out of its programmes.
  157. 157 Nevertheless, as the Government had not supplied specific information in answer to the allegations concerning the dismissal of trade union leaders, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee as set forth in paragraph 75 (a) of its 82nd Report, requested the Government to be good enough to furnish a detailed reply concerning the allegation that 51 trade union leaders had been dismissed from their posts as a measure of reprisal, " and concerning the present situation of these leaders ".
  158. 158 Since then, at each of its sessions, the Committee has had to postpone examination of this aspect of the case while repeating to the Government the request in question.
  159. 159 The communication received from the Government on 24 April 1968 makes no specific reference to this point.
  160. 160 Although several years have now elapsed since the events in question took place, it is appropriate to note that, if the trade union leaders in question were dismissed purely for the reason indicated in the complaint, such action was incompatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Convention No. 98, to which attention was drawn by the Committee when it examined the case for the first time (see paragraph 154 above).
  161. 161 Accordingly, the Committee recommends the Governing Body, while expressing its disappointment at the fact that the Government has failed to supply the particular observations that have repeatedly been requested from it, to emphasise once again the importance it has always attached to the principle embodied in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by the Dominican Republic.
• Allegations relating to New Measures of Interference and Discrimination against the National Federation of Schoolteachers
  162. 162 In its communication of 19 January 1967 FENAMA makes new allegations of infringement of its trade union rights. These allegations are set forth in a fairly lengthy memorandum dealing with the dispute which has arisen between the Government and FENAMA. The complainants allege in substance that the dispute originally arose out of the dismissal of a number of headmasters and teachers in September 1966.
  163. 163 The Secretary of State for Education is said to have refused to receive a deputation from FENAMA to discuss the matter. The complaining organisation declares that it requested that the matter should be placed before the National Education Council, on which the organisation is entitled by law to be represented by three persons, but was unable to obtain satisfaction, as the Secretary of State " had made up his mind not to talk to the leaders of the National Federation of Schoolteachers, which by virtue of Decree No. 43 of 14 March 1963 is a legal entity representing the country's teaching profession ".
  164. 164 According to the complainants the Secretariat of State for Education has encouraged and sponsored the setting up of parallel organisations with a view to " exercising control " over teachers. Specific reference is made to the forming in Santiago de los Caballeros of a teachers' association under the control of the Secretariat, on the initiative of the Director of Education for Santiago.
  165. 165 FENAMA also asserts that in December 1966, as a means of pressure, the postal and telegraphic franchise enjoyed by the organisation was withdrawn. This franchise, it claims, is a privilege " to which all political organisations and occupational or cultural organisations of workers have been entitled since 1962 ". In the opinion of the complainants the withdrawal of this franchise from FENAMA proves " that the Government is bent on its destruction, by denying it an effective means of communication with its affiliates ".
  166. 166 The communication received from the Government on 24 April 1968 forwards the observation made by the Secretariat of State for Education, Fine Arts and Religious Affairs. The Secretariat declares that, in accordance with the principles of the Constitution now in force, it " invariably upholds the standards of a free democratic society, characterised by the rule of law, such as the Dominican Republic today ". Accordingly, the Secretariat considers that the allegations of FENAMA concerning violations of freedom of association are groundless, not only because the events in question did not take place but also because " in a serious case like this convincing evidence should be produced to the effect that there has been a breach of a Constitutional principle ".
  167. 167 The Government considers that, in the light of these observations, the Committee will be bound to acknowledge that the complaints are groundless.
  168. 168 The Committee takes note of the Government's observations, but is obliged to point out again in connection with this case that they do not deal with the specific points raised in the complaint. In this respect attention is drawn to the fact that it is one of the established principles of the procedure for examining allegations relating to the infringement of trade union rights that, where precise allegations are made, the Committee cannot regard as satisfactory replies from governments which are confined to generalities.
  169. 169 In this instance the allegations refer to the refusal by the Secretary of State for Education to receive representatives of FENAMA to discuss matters which, judging by the complaint, have a bearing on the professional interests of its members. Reference is also made to the withdrawal from FENAMA for anti-union motives of a franchise which, according to the complainants, is granted to all occupational or cultural organisations of workers.
  170. 170 As for the remaining allegation, it might be considered that the fact of forming a new schoolteachers' union unconnected with another which already exists is a matter within the discretion of the members and does not in itself form sufficient grounds for a complaint. Nevertheless, in this instance the complainants allege that the Secretariat of State for Education encouraged and sponsored the forming of the new organisation, which is said to be " under its control ". Thus the issue raised refers to alleged government interference in the affairs of a trade union.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 171. In order to be able to make its conclusions in full knowledge of all the facts, the Committee considers that the Government should be given a further opportunity to supply more detailed observations on these allegations.