Interim Report - Report No 149, November 1975

Case No 678 (Spain) - Complaint date: 14-FEB-72 - Closed

65. The Committee considered Case No. 678 in February 1973 and February 1974 and on each occasion submitted an interim report (paragraphs 187-195 of its 135th Report and paragraphs 172-190 of its 142nd Report, as adopted by the Governing Body, respectively, at its 189th Session in February-March 1973 and 192nd Session in February-March 1974). Case No. 803 relates to allegations which the Committee has not yet considered.

1. 65. The Committee considered Case No. 678 in February 1973 and February 1974 and on each occasion submitted an interim report (paragraphs 187-195 of its 135th Report and paragraphs 172-190 of its 142nd Report, as adopted by the Governing Body, respectively, at its 189th Session in February-March 1973 and 192nd Session in February-March 1974). Case No. 803 relates to allegations which the Committee has not yet considered.
2. 66. In two communications relating to these cases, the Government of Spain refers in general terms to the position it took in its communications dated 29 February and 13 May 1972, concerning various cases involving Spain which were in abeyance. In the first of these communications, the Government, inter alia, objected that some of the language used in the complaints was insulting to the Spanish Government and that the complaints in question supported clandestine organisations. In the second communication, the Government said it was prepared to co-operate with the ILO but once more expressed reservations with regard to certain points already raised in its communication dated 29 February 1972. The Committee recalls that, in its report to the Governing Body (186th Session), it mentioned that it could not share the Governments reservations concerning certain matters of principle raised in the communication dated 13 May 1972 but noted with interest the Government's statement to the effect that it was prepared to collaborate (see paragraph 6 of the 131st Report, adopted by the Governing Body at that session).
3. 67. In its answer, dated 13 January 1975, concerning case No. 803, the Government of Spain made specific objections to the language used in the complaint to describe the action of the police. In this connection, the Committee once again recalls that it can take no responsibility for the language used in complaints submitted, but the respect due to the Committee and the tasks it has to perform demand that the procedure be properly and correctly applied and that use of language calculated to envenom rather than clarify a controversy should be avoided.
4. 68. More generally, the Government, in various communications relating to these cases, refers to a principle repeatedly affirmed by the Committee, namely, that "the fact that a government responds to a request for information on a specific complaint does not imply that it recognises the exactness and even less the validity of the complaint but merely that it is co-operating with the Committee and the Governing Body". The Government states that such collaboration is designed merely to cast light on the facts involved and must not be interpreted as a recognition by the Government of obligations which it has not assumed.
5. 69. 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

• Case No. 678
  70. 70 The Committee recalls that the complainants in the first place alleged that trade union leaders and workers (Carmen Frios Arroyo, Angel de la Cruz Bermedo, José-Mariá Zufiaur Narvaiza, José Luis Longarte Fernández, José Luis Zungarren Aberasturi, Manuel Zaguirre Carro, Antonio Martínez Ovejero, Nicolás David Mora, José Luis Aldasoro, Isidoro Gálvez Garcia and José-Maria de la Hoz) had been arrested for illegal association and trade union activities, and that the police had intervened in demonstrations by striking workers at the Bazán shipyards at El Ferrol. In the course of that intervention, two workers had been killed, various others had been injured and others had been arrested.
  71. 71 In connection with the arrest of the above persons, the Government, in several communications, stated that they were not proceeded against for trade union activities, but were accused of promoting a subversive organisation or of action tending to the creation of such an organisation. They were provisionally at liberty and the judicial procedure was taking its course. As regards the events at El Ferrol, the facts were being investigated by the courts responsible for trying the persons involved.
  72. 72 At its session in February 1973, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, as regards the arrest of the persons mentioned in paragraph 70 above, to take note that they were provisionally at liberty and to request the Government to supply copies of the judgments rendered, complete with their attendant considerations, and, as regards the events at El Ferrol, to request the Government for information about the outcome of the investigations made and to supply copies of the judgments rendered, again with their attendant considerations.
  73. 73 Later complaints had to do with workers at the Olaveaga and Sestao shipyards and other plants in the region of Biscay. These workers had organised meetings and strikes to get better working conditions in new collective agreements. It was alleged that five workers of the "Astilleros españoles", notably Nicolás Redondo and Josh Antonio Sarazibal, had been arrested for trade union activities by virtue of the Public Order Act and the powers bestowed therein on the authorities. These two workers, so the complainants alleged, had been fined (one of them 200,000 pesetas and the other 100,000); they had not paid these fines and hence had remained in prison (one complainant enclosed a copy of the notification of the penalties sent to the men concerned by the Security Department). Nicolás Redondo, while still in gaol, had been dismissed for being absent without due cause.
  74. 74 The Government maintains that the facts were not as recounted by the complainants According to statements made by one of the arrested men, they had been ordered to make contact with Communists and with them to plan activities designed to disrupt public order in the region. To that end, the Government added, they met leaders of the Communist subversive movement in the province of Viscaya and were taken by surprise during the meeting. Four of the five workers mentioned in the complaints did not belong to the "Astilleros españoles"; they were agitators making use of what had happened in that plant for purely political ends. The persons arrested had been punished for subversion and charged with encouraging breaches of the peace. They had not made use of recognised procedures for appealing against their fines. The labour court had ruled that Nicolás Redondo's dismissal was unjustified.
  75. 75 At its session in February 1974, the Committee had observed that these men seemed to have been punished by virtue of the Public Order Act of 30 June 1959, as amended on 21 July 1971, and Nicolás Redondo, notably, by virtue of section 2. It seemed that the men in question had been heavily fined by the authorities and imprisoned for not having been able to pay. The Committee observed that Nicolás Redondo had been condemned by virtue of section 2(c) of the said Act, which provides that collective stoppages are actions contrary to public order. The Committee had recommended the Governing Body to draw the Government's attention to certain principles as regards this aspect of the case and stated that it would report again as soon as it had received the information requested from the Government concerning the other allegations - information which it had not yet received (see paragraph 72 above).
  76. 76 In letters dated 23 May and 10 October 1974, the Government provided further observations. In the first of these letters, it stated that the authorities were empowered to impose penalties on all Spaniards, whether trade unionists or not, for specific illegal activities but that the accused could appeal, in the last resort, to the courts. It challenged the statement that Nicolás Redondo had been penalised under section 2(c) of the Public Order Act and that the subparagraphs of that same section had been applied to him because he had been party to a collective stoppage. It was not the strikers of the "Astilleros españoles" who had been punished but persons outside that undertaking. Nicolás Redondo had conspired against public order. Section 2(c) of the Public Order Act interpreted collective stoppages as contrary to public order only when they actually did disturb it. Decree No. 1376 (22 May 1970) on collective labour disputes dealt with stoppages, amongst other things. Stoppages occurred in Spain as everywhere else and, whether in fact or in law, there was no absolute ban on the right to strike.
  77. 77 In its communication dated 10 October 1974, the Government supplied part of the information requested of it in connection with what had happened in March 1972 in the Bazán undertaking at El Ferrol. A collective agreement was being negotiated and a large crowd had assembled outside the shipyard. Small groups of agitators, in an effort to profit by what they asserted were occupational claims (which could be handled by appropriate channels), had stirred up very serious disturbances, with risk to life and limb. The police, far fewer in number than the demonstrators, had intervened to restore order but had been savagely attacked, suffering twenty men injured only then did the police, in self-defence, and after issuing the usual warnings, fire into the air and then into the ground, as proved by the fact that the majority of those wounded had been hit in the legs. Unfortunately, two demonstrators had been killed. The injured policemen had been treated for injuries of various kinds. From that moment onwards, the Government adds, and for several hours thereafter, a tiny group of demonstrators, trained to sow disorder and confusion, had attacked shops and vehicles in the heavily-populated city centre.
  78. 78 The arrests made had in no way been motivated by labour questions but had been carried out as a result of public disturbances, scuffles, bodily injuries, damage to property, and attacks on the police. That such was the case had been borne out by subsequent investigation. The persons arrested had played a leading part in the disorders. Out of twenty-six persons arrested, sixteen had been released provisionally and the public order tribunal was investigating their cases. Of the others, seven had been released, the public order tribunal having suspended its proceedings against them.
  79. 79 The Committee notes the Government's explanations concerning the legislation applicable in the event of labour disputes and strikes. In this connection, it recalls that, having in its general survey on the standards relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining considered the question of the right to strike, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations had referred to cases in which there was a general ban on strikes, as a result either of specific legal provisions or, "for all practical purposes, from the cumulative effect of the provisions relating to the established dispute settlement machinery, according to which labour disputes are channelled through compulsory conciliation and arbitration procedures leading to a final award or decision which is binding on the parties concerned". Spain was one of the countries quoted in this connection (Decree No. 1376, 1970). A document submitted by the representative of Spain to the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the 58th Session of the International Labour Conference stated that the reference made to Spain in that particular paragraph called for no special comments, since the existence of such procedures marked an advance in legal and social terms. The Committee of Experts had observed that a general prohibition of strikes constituted a considerable restriction of the opportunities open to trade unions for furthering and defending the interests of their members and of the right of trade unions to organise their activities.
  80. 80 The Committee also takes note of the Government's information about the events at El Ferrol. As regards the persons arrested as a result of those events and the arrested persons referred to in paragraph 70 above (about which the information requested has still not been forthcoming), the Committee considers that a copy of the judgments rendered or to be rendered, with the grounds adduced therefor, should be placed at its disposal.
• Case No. 803
  81. 81 The complaint appears in a letter from the International Metalworkers' Federation, dated 8 October 1974. The Government commented thereon in a letter dated 13 January 1975.
  82. 82 The International Metalworkers' Federation stated that twenty or so of the thirty people arrested on the occasion of the demonstrations at the Valladolid Fasa-Renault plant were still in gaol. At the same time, forty-two or forty-three workers of the Seat (Fiat) works in Barcelona had been arrested, together with four workers from the Fiat works in Italy (their names are given), who happened to be visiting Spain. The police had brutally intervened and in Valladolid many people had been injured.
  83. 83 The Government, stressing the vagueness of these allegations, provided the following information. A labour dispute had broken out in Valladolid as a result of an order issued by the Department of Labour concerning hours of work per week in the metalworking industry. The statutory dispute-settlement procedure had been begun, but a small group of activists had taken advantage of the dispute to cause disorder and make subversive propaganda. False claims, deliberately pitched so high as to be unattainable, had been mingled with language subversive of the institutions of the State. Despite the fact that the statutory procedure had been undertaken a small non-representative group had delivered an ultimatum to the undertaking, threatening a strike unless an immediate answer was received.
  84. 84 On instructions from the political agitators, pursued the Government, various unauthorised demonstrations had taken place. The police, several times attacked, had suffered a number of casualties. No demonstrator, however, had been hurt. Other disorders had then broken out. Thirty-seven people had been arrested, not for anything to do with trade union activities but for causing disorder or undertaking clandestine propaganda. Half of them did not belong to the undertaking and certain of them were not even working men. Eleven of the persons detained had been released and the twenty-six others remained in custody. Twenty-four were released at once and the remaining two released on bail. Shortly thereafter a fire had broken out in that particular plant, and it looked very much as though it was a case of arson.
  85. 85 As regards the events in Barcelona, the persons arrested had been detained, not because of anything to do with a labour dispute but for activities quite unconnected with labour matters. They had been seized, in flagrante delicto, at an illegal meeting at which a report was being prepared about the creation of a "democratic Committee" in Paris. The chair at the meeting had been taken by a doctor, a lawyer and an electrician, members of the "Catalan Unified Socialist Party". None of the three belonged to SEAT. The meeting was proved to have been a political one. Some of those present had greeted the arrival of the police with acts of violence. Various people had been arrested, including the four Italians mentioned by the International Metalworkers' Federation. The majority had been released within the time limits specified by law. No more than four had been remanded in custody to stand trial, and the four Italians had been taken to the frontier and expelled.
  86. 86 As regards these events in Barcelona, the Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government to the effect that this aspect of the case had to do with the holding of a political and not a trade union gathering.
  87. 87 As regards the events which occurred at the Fasa-Renault works in Valladolid as part of a labour dispute, the Committee, here again, feels it necessary to request the Government to supply a copy of the judgments rendered on the two persons on remand, together with the grounds adduced therefor.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 88. In these circumstances, and as regards the two cases considered, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) once more to draw the Government's attention to the considerations and principles set forth in paragraph 79 above (Case No. 678);
   • (b) to request the Government to provide it with a copy of the judgments rendered or to be rendered, together with the grounds adduced therefor, as regards the persons involved in these two cases and referred to in paragraphs 80 (Case No. 678) and 87 (Case No. 803 above);
   • (c) to take note of this interim report, it being understood that another report will be submitted to the Governing Body as soon as the Committee has obtained the information mentioned in subparagraph (b) above.