Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 300, Novembre 1995

1. 298. The complaints in this case are contained in a communication from the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT), dated 4 November 1994 (Case No. 1811), and in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 17 January 1995 (Case No. 1816).
2. 299. Due to the absence of a reply from the Government regarding the allegations, the Committee had to defer the examination of these cases. At its June 1995 meeting the Committee drew the Government's attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (November 1971), it would present a report on the substance of this case at its next meeting, even if the observations or information requested had not been received in due time (see 299th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 263rd Session (May-June 1995), para. 8). To date, no information has been received from the Government.
3. 300. Paraguay has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

• Case No. 1811
  301. 301 In its communication of 4 November 1994, the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT), after referring to many and serious violations of labour legislation in the Eximpora Coffee Producing enterprise S.A. (excessive working hours, employment of children and the elderly, wages below the statutory minimum wage, etc.), alleges the following violations of trade union rights against the trade union of workers in the aforementioned enterprise:
       • - mass dismissal of 200 trade union members in 1992, when the trade union brought pressure to bear for the signing of a collective agreement;
       • - declaring a strike called in June 1993 illegal when the strikers blocked the way leading to the enterprise;
       • - death threats in 1993 against the trade union officials Jacinto Areco and Ramón Luis Vázquez;
       • - dismissal of Mrs. Hida Duarte, the wife of a trade union official, as well as of the trade unionists Cirilo Silva and Florentín Aguero for having allegedly destroyed property belonging to the enterprise;
       • - failure to comply with an agreement signed by the enterprise in April 1994, after a hunger strike, in which it undertook to pay wages in arrears and to reinstate the workers dismissed, including the trade union officials. To date, many have not yet been reinstated;
       • - arrest and trial of six trade union officials and trade union members, accused of trespassing on private property, of kidnapping and of making death threats;
       • - placing of two packets of cocaine in the home of the former Secretary-General of the trade union, Roque Jacinto Areco, with a view to implicating the trade union in a drugs traffic affair;
       • - in March 1994 the private guard of the enterprise prevented the trade union official Ceferino Quiñones, from entering the premises when he wanted to investigate the dismissal of three women and the violent eviction from their homes;
       • - unjustified dismissal in April 1994 of Ramón Luis Vázquez, Secretary-General of the trade union, and of his wife and of their eviction from their family home which belonged to the enterprise.
  302. Case No. 1816
  302. 302 In its communication of 17 January 1995, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges that after the workers in the Paraguayan television broadcasting company, Teledifusora Paraguaya, had set up their union and opened discussions with the enterprise, the latter illegally dismissed 25 workers without any justification, amongst which were included the following trade union officials: Blanca Lila Fernández, Secretary-General; Alejandro Chamorro, Deputy Secretary-General; Silvio Cuevas, Press Secretary; Marta Giménez, Treasurer; Dante Daniel Melgarejo, Education Secretary; Arnaldo González, Organizational Secretary; and Anibal Colman, Disputes Secretary. In addition, further dismissals were threatened if workers joined the trade union.
  303. 303 The ICFTU adds that workers in the enterprise Paraguay Refrescos S.A., the franchise holder for Coca Cola in Paraguay, had gone on strike to request compliance with a number of clauses in its collective agreement and to protest against the dismissal of a trade union official and the fact that the enterprise has failed to make wage adjustments. According to the ICFTU, members of the police force, who entered company premises, occasionally went out on the street to break up strikers' demonstrations - regardless of the fact that these were fully legal. More specifically, on 5 January 1994, at approximately midday, a group of policemen brutally and unjustifiably broke up a workers' protest march. The police fired their riot guns loaded with steel pellets, hitting a number of demonstrators on various parts of their bodies - including their heads in some cases.

B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 304. First, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not communicated the observations requested on the serious allegations brought against it, despite the time which has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint and despite the fact that it was invited to make comments and observations on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal.
2. 305. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rule of procedure (see para. 17 of the 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (November 1971)), the Committee finds itself obliged to submit a report on the substance of these cases even without the information it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 306. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure is to ensure respect for trade union rights, both in law and in fact. The Committee in convinced that while the procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must for their part recognize the importance of formulating detailed and factual replies concerning the substance of the allegations brought against them in order to permit an objective examination (see First Report, para. 31, approved by the Governing Body in March 1952).
4. 307. With respect to Case No. 1811, the Committee stresses the seriousness of the allegations which refer to a number of violations of trade union rights in the Eximpora Coffee Producing enterprise S.A., in a context in which there were serious infringements of labour legislation. As regards the fact that a strike called in June 1993 had been declared illegal because the strikers had blocked the way to the enterprise, the Committee recalls that the exercise of the right to strike should respect the freedom to work of non-strikers when the legislation stipulates this, as well as the right of management of the enterprise to enter into the premises of the enterprise.
5. 308. As regards the arrest and trial of six trade union officials accused of trespassing on private property, kidnapping and making death threats, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the trial and to send it the text of the judgement so that it might express an opinion on charges brought against the trade union officials in full knowledge of all the facts.
6. 309. Concerning the other allegations (dismissal and eviction from their homes of trade union officials and members, failure to comply with an agreement signed by the enterprise, attempts to implicate a trade union official in a drugs traffic affair and refusal to allow a trade union official into the enterprise to carry out trade union functions), the Committee requests the Government to carry out urgently an inquiry on this matter in order to determine responsibilities and penalize any violation of trade union rights, as well as to take as soon as possible the necessary measures to allow any trade union official or member dismissed for their lawful trade union activities to be reinstated. Similarly, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that nobody should be dismissed or be subject to acts of anti-trade union discrimination on account of their lawful trade union activities and requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle in the future and keep it informed of the outcome of the above-mentioned inquiry.
7. 310. Concerning Case No. 1816, the Committee considers that the mass dismissal of 25 workers - including seven officials - of the Paraguayan television broadcasting company, Teledifusora Paraguaya, after it had been set up and opened discussions with the enterprise, as well as threats of dismissal against those deciding to join the trade union, constitutes serious violations of Article 1 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Paraguay, which stipulates that:
8. 1. Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.
9. 2. Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to -
   • (a) make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union membership;
   • (b) cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.
     • Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to reinstate the 25 trade union officials or members dismissed, to prevent future acts of anti-trade union discrimination and to keep it informed in this respect.
   • 311. As regards the presence of the police in the enterprise during the strike carried out in Paraguay Refrescos S.A. and to the injuries incurred as a result of the shots fired by the police during a protest march, the Committee deeply regrets these deplorable actions and requests that a judicial inquiry be carried out to determine responsibilities and punish the guilty. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect and draws its attention to the fact that "the authorities should resort to calling in the police in a strike situation only if there is a genuine threat to public order; the intervention of the police should be in proportion to the threat to public order and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations that might undermine public order" (see 278th Report, Case No. 1541 (Peru), para. 255).