Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 108, 1969

1. 231. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 6 February 1967 from the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions (C.L.A.S.C.). The text was forwarded to the Government with a letter dated 20 February 1967, together with the text of a statement made on 30 January 1967 by the Christian Federation of Labour (Paraguay), which is affiliated to the C.L.A.S.C, and which had sent a signed copy of the statement to the I.L.O.
2. 232. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 10 June 1968.
3. 233. Paraguay 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

1. 234. In its communication of 6 February 1967, the C.L.A.S.C alleged that the workers and the executive Committee of the Trade Union of the San Antonio Cold Store had been the victims of an attack on freedom of association. The strike that they had declared to obtain better working conditions had been repressed by the Government. The C.L.A.S.C added that the Government had decided to take over the union, and had therefore dismissed the executive that had been elected by the workers themselves and installed in its place persons appointed by the labour authorities as administrators. Since the workers did not accept the coercive measure of the Government or the violation of freedom of association, the labour authorities ordered the imprisonment of the legitimate officers of the union. The C.L.A.S.C concluded by requesting the I.L.O. to intervene in defence of trade union rights and Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
2. 235. In the document sent by the Christian Federation of Labour (Paraguay) dated 30 January 1967, it is indicated, among other things, that as a result of strikes carried out by the union in the undertaking, the National Directorate of Labour, meeting a request by the employers, decided to take over the union and entrust its administration to three members of the Paraguayan Federation of Labour (C.P.T.). The document in question also stated that since the executive of the union had not complied meekly with the orders of the administrators, these administrators had succeeded in having the officers of the union deprived of civil rights for five years.
3. 236. It was also stated that, at the assembly held on 15 January 1967 to elect new officers, the Paraguayan Federation of Labour had appointed the chairman and secretaries of the meeting, which had to be suspended on account of the general indignation of the members of the union and the certainty that the candidate who, according to the allegation, was nominated by a political organisation and by the undertaking would be rejected. The former officers were arrested. When the assembly was resumed on 29 January, some 100 persons " who did not work in the Cold Store and who were not and never had been members of the Union " created disturbances " in collusion with members of the police force and of the C.P.T." and had a report and a list of candidates approved. Nobody was allowed to speak, no other list was presented, and no vote was taken. According to the complainants, it was by all these means that an attempt was made to prevent the list of candidates supported by the majority of the members and headed by genuine trade union leaders from taking control of the leadership of the union.
4. 237. In its letter of 10 June 1968, the Government encloses a copy of a communication from the Ministry of Justice and Labour, the substance of which is as follows: As a result of complaints received from the International Products Corporation, the labour authorities became aware of the succession of strikes by the workers of the San Antonio Cold Store, who had failed to comply with any of the requirements laid down by the Labour Code (sections 350, 353 and 354). In view of this serious situation, the Directorate of Labour asked the Trade Union of the San Antonio Cold Store for information. The union replied that the previous three strikes had not been authorised by it and that they had been carried out by a decision of the workers and without the knowledge of the union officers. This clear and categorical statement led to the conclusion that the union, having had no part in these serious events, had lost authority over its members, and that it was therefore necessary to take over the union with a view to restoring normal conditions and bringing labour-management relations back to the right channels. The Labour Directorate, by virtue of resolution No. 139 of 23 July 1966, declared that the union was taken over.
5. 238. The communication from the Ministry of Justice and Labour states that the taking over was carried out without interference by the administrative authorities, this task being entrusted to the C.P.T, to which the union was affiliated, and that it was this Federation that had appointed the committee of administration. The administrators' report stated that there had been irregular administration and mismanagement of the funds of the union, which had lost all authority and control over its members. For these reasons, the administrators convened a general assembly, with all the necessary formalities, at which the members appointed their officers freely and democratically without any coercion.
6. 239. The Ministry states categorically that there was no interference by the labour authorities in the assembly. It says that those who complained that force had been used to impose the election of sham trade union leaders were not telling the truth, since it was the Federation to which the union belonged that has been entrusted with its administration, and that there was no truth in the accusation that the labour authorities had ordered the imprisonment of the union leaders, such a measure being outside their powers.
7. 240. The Ministry of Justice and Labour states that reports obtained from the National Directorate of Technical Affairs of the Ministry of the Interior indicate that the workers Mauro Ramirez Arias, Cecilio Rojas Bedoya, Antonio Pereira Ayala and César Rufino Bedoya had been arrested on 12 January 1967 for questioning in connection with the commission of subversive activities in the San Antonio area, and that they had been released on 24 January. On 29 January, the date of the assembly, no worker of the Cold Store was still under detention.
8. 241. The Government asserts that labour-management relations are now fully normal. It also denounces " pseudo-union activities of a communist nature that are carried on in the name of Christian democracy in all the freely functioning unions, with the obvious purpose of destroying and dividing the working class ".
   • Allegations relating to the Arrest of Union Leaders
9. 242. The Committee takes note of the Government's statement that no leader of the union in question has been arrested at the instigation of the labour authorities. However, from the other information contained in the detailed reply of the Government, and in particular from that supplied by the Ministry of the Interior, it appears that Messrs. Ramirez, Rojas, Pereira and Bedoya were detained for some 12 days for suspected subversive activities and that they were released some days before the assembly at which the new executive of the union was elected.
10. 243. The Committee wishes to recall that in previous cases in which it was alleged that trade union leaders had been preventively detained, it has considered that measures of preventive detention may involve a serious interference with the exercise of trade union rights which it would seem necessary to justify by the existence of a serious emergency and which would be open to criticism unless accompanied by adequate judicial safeguards applied within a reasonable period, and that it should be the policy of every government to ensure the observance of human rights and especially the right of all detained persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment. The Committee has also pointed out that the detention by the authorities of trade unionists concerning whom no grounds for conviction are subsequently found is liable to involve restrictions of trade union rights. In these cases, the Committee has recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to take steps to ensure that the authorities concerned have instructions appropriate to eliminate the danger of detention for trade union activities
11. 244. In the present case, the available information does not show that the men were detained as a result of legal proceedings. Nevertheless, as they have since been released, the Committee recommends the Governing Body, subject to the considerations referred to in the preceding paragraph, to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
    • Allegations relating to the Taking Over of a Union
12. 245. From the information supplied to the Committee, it appears that the Trade Union of the San Antonio Cold Store was taken over from July 1966 to January 1967. According to the statement of the Government, the reasons for this measure were the fact that the workers had declared several strikes without observing the requirements laid down in the Labour Code, these decisions being also taken independently of the union and the need to bring labour-management relations back to the right channels. In its reply, the Government also mentions certain acts of mismanagement of union funds, but this question, on which no details are supplied, appears to have been raised a posteriori, that is, in the report of the administrators.
13. 246. One of the provisions of the Labour Code, to which the Government refers, lays down that before the workers belonging to a union can declare a strike, the decision shall be agreed to by two-thirds of the members, after discussion at a general meeting, and secret ballot under the supervision of the competent labour authority (section 353 (b)). It should also be pointed out that, in accordance with section 356, whenever a strike is declared by a number of workers less than that indicated above, the competent authority shall declare that a state of strike does not exist, and order any workers who have left their employment to report back for work within the next 24 hours, under pain of termination of their contract of employment. Under section 357 of the Code, failure to comply with the other previous conditions as to form results in the workers concerned being disciplined by the non-payment of their wages during the period of the strike.
14. 247. The question raised in the complaint does not, however, refer to the application of provisions relating to strikes but to the alleged violation of the independence of the union, to measures taken against the leaders in office at the time, and to the actions of the administrators, who, according to the complainants, had lent themselves to manoeuvres designed to impose the appointment of an executive lacking the support of the majority of the members.
15. 248. The C.L.A.S.C states, in effect, that the taking over resulted in the dismissal of the previous executive, and the Christian Federation of Labour mentions the deprivation of civil rights for five years imposed on the members thereof. Further, at the meeting convened by the administrators, at which persons having no connection with the union had taken part by force, the members had not been able to present other candidates, to speak, or to vote.
16. 249. The Government replies to this that the administrative labour authority did not interfere in matters concerning the union, that the assembly was convened in accordance with all the formalities, and that the members elected their officers freely, democratically, and without coercion.
17. 250. It will be realised that the only respect in which all this information is consistent is in so far as it refers to the taking over of the union itself and to the fact that the Paraguayan Federation of Labour was entrusted with the task by the Government. This latter fact, although it gives a special nature to the case, cannot in itself be sufficient reason for regarding the examination of the allegations as closed. It should be recalled that in an earlier case, in which the Committee considered that the complainants had not furnished proof that the government concerned had intervened directly in trade union life, the Committee emphasised nevertheless that freedom of association should be ensured in fact as well as in law and drew the attention of the government to the desirability of taking appropriate measures, if necessary, to ensure the free exercise of the right to organise of workers and employers even in their relations with other organisations or third parties. In the present case the Government itself states that it entrusted the task of taking over the organisation in question to the Paraguayan Federation of Labour.
18. 251. The C.L.A.S.C refers to the provisions of 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), both of which have been ratified by Paraguay. The only allegation to which the second of these Conventions can have any relevance is that referring to the support said to have been given by the undertaking to a candidate for office on the new executive of the union. Under Article 2, paragraph 2, of Convention No. 98, workers' organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference such as those designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers or employers' organisations, or to support workers' organisations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers' organisations. The complainants, however, give no details to support this allegation,
19. 252. On the other hand, the very fact of the taking over, the preventive detention of the officers of the Trade Union of the San Antonio Cold Store shortly before the trade union elections and the detailed allegations that this taking over prevented the members of the union from taking part freely in the assembly and, in particular, in the election of its officers-allegations of which the Government denies the truth-do have a connection with Article 3 of Convention No. 87, which provides, inter alia, that workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference that would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
20. 253. Lastly, the Committee has received no information from the Government on the allegation that the former officers have been deprived of civil rights for five years. If this measure has been taken, it would be important, for the further examination of the case, to know whether it is still in force and on what legal provisions it is based.
21. 254. For the above reasons, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to emphasise the importance it has always attached to the provision of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 referred to above, and also to ask the Government for information on the point mentioned in paragraph 253.