Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 139, 1974

1. 385. The complaint from the World Federation of Trade Unions is contained in a communication dated 28 September 1972. This communication was transmitted to the Government, which furnished its observations in a communication dated 4 October 1973.
2. 386. Spain has ratified neither 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 387. The WFTU alleges that nearly all undertakings in Vigo have been paralysed as a result of a movement of solidarity with the strike carried out by workers in Citroën-Hispania to protest against dismissals and demand a 44-hour week. According to the complainants, the authorities and employers responded to the strikes by dismissing large numbers of workers and making numerous arrests. Consequently, they request ILO intervention to secure the release of the arrested workers and the reinstatement of those who have been dismissed.
2. 388. In its reply, the Government states that its attitude was defined in its statement of 29 February 1972 and in its communication of 12 May 1973, but that it is supplying observations on this case on the understanding that, as has repeatedly been stated by the Committee on Freedom of Association, "the fact that a government replies to a request for information on a specific complaint does not imply that the government recognises the accuracy or - even less - the validity of the complaint but merely that it is cooperating with the Committee and with the Governing Body". The Government states that the fact that the complaint refers to a labour matter (the reinstatement of dismissed workers) enables it to give a more explicit reply than on other occasions.
3. 389. According to the Government, the competent judicial authorities intervened immediately in each of these two matters - the labour and the non-labour question; the Labour Court of Vigo as regards the reinstatement of dismissed workers, and the ordinary courts as regards the arrests. In connection with the labour aspect, the Trade Union Organisation appointed an hombre bueno, i.e. an independent and objective person who applies his experience and goodwill to mediating between the parties to a dispute. He carried out his mission to the satisfaction of both parties.
4. 390. The Government goes on to say that of the 254 applications made to the labour court, 88 were withdrawn by the applicants and agreement was reached in respect of 24. Of the remaining 142 applications respecting dismissals, 60 had been submitted by undertakings and 82 by the workers. The Labour Court ruled that 25 dismissals were unlawful and quashed 8 others. The remaining dismissals were upheld. The Government explains that in the cases where the dismissals were upheld, the Court relied on the provisions of section 102 and other relevant sections of the Act respecting procedure in labour matters, and section 77, subsections (a) and (b), of the Act respecting contracts of employment, as well as the provisions of section 95.2 of the Labour Ordinance for the Iron and Steel Industry. In the case of staff holding trade union office, and thereby enjoying special protection by law, account was taken of the provisions of sections 107 to 110 of the Act respecting procedure in labour matters, as well as of the provisions laid down by the Decree of 23 July 1971 in respect of trade union guarantees.
5. 391. The Government considers that the reference in the complaint to the "immediate release of imprisoned workers" is an entirely different matter from that mentioned above. According to the Government, the authorities confined themselves to adopting the appropriate measures to deal with the serious undermining of public order caused by the agitators. The Government explains that since the beginning of 1972 there has been a wave of propaganda and communist-inspired subversive activities in Vigo; among their other activities, which have been mainly political, those responsible have tried to turn any normal labour tension that arose to their advantage. In September 1972, these subversive elements concentrated their activities on the Citroën-Hispania undertaking, in an attempt to create a situation that might spark off disturbances in other undertakings and undermine public order. To achieve the first of these aims, the Government continues, they posted pickets who forcibly prevented the personnel from entering the factory. In pursuit of the second aim, they set up commandos who attacked individuals and property, as well as the police, who, to safeguard law and order, were obliged to arrest the more aggressive elements. The persons responsible for the subversive "propaganda material", found in a Vigo attic, together with other persons implicated were also arrested.
6. 392. The Government points out that these persons were not arrested on grounds of their labour or trade union activities but for subversive activities or for breaches of the peace. A total of 103 persons were arrested, of whom 4 were released without proceedings being instituted against them and 6 were fined by the prevention authorities and also released. The remaining 93 persons were placed at the disposal of the judicial authority, which ordered the immediate release of 19 of them. The judge subsequently ordered the release of another 63 persons after the prosecution had withdrawn charges, or following acquittal or the imposition of fines. Finally, only 11 persons remained in custody, awaiting trial, in accordance with the law.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 393. The Committee observes, as regards the dismissal of workers, that the dismissals appear to have been caused by the workers' participation in strike movements. The Committee has always taken the view that allegations relating to the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as they concern the exercise of trade union rights. It has also maintained that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests. The Committee has considered acceptable some temporary restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike, for example during conciliation and arbitration procedures and during the statutory period of strike notice, as well as restrictions in the case of the public service and essential services. Participation in a strike, despite such restrictions, may, depending on the law of the country, entail various consequences for the workers and may even constitute justifiable grounds for their dismissal. Nevertheless, the Committee considers that any restriction on the right to strike should not imply a limitation on the potential activities of trade unions, which would not be in conformity with the generally recognised principles of freedom of association. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the considerations and principles mentioned above.