Definitive Report - Report No 172, March 1978

Case No 865 (Ecuador) - Complaint date: 19-OCT-76 - Closed

1. 63. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 19 October 1976 from Mr. Jorge Cuisana Valencia, in his stated capacity as President of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Class Organisations (CEDOC). The complainant sent additional information in a later communication of 13 May 1977. The texts of the aforementioned communications were transmitted to the Government which sent its observations in letters of 2 February and 21 June 1977.
2. 64. Ecuador 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. 65. In his communication of 19 October 1976, the complainant stated that CEDOC, an organisation affiliated to the Latin American Central of Workers and the World Confederation of Labour, had in recent months been the victim of divisive manoeuvres led by elements extraneous to the working class. The complainant stated that a group called a meeting, to which they had given the name of congress, which was totally unrepresentative and which was attended by less than 10 per cent of the delegates of the organisations constituting CEDOC. Subsequently, an illegal executive, presided over by Mr. Emilio Velasco Ortega, presented itself at the ministry of Labour and Welfare and was registered by the General Directorate of that Ministry.
2. 66. The complainant concluded his communication by claiming that recognition of this union executive constituted a violation of Convention No. 87 as well as the resolution concerning the independence of the trade union movement adopted by the International Labour Conference in 1952.
3. 67. In his communication of 13 May 1977 the complainant forwarded various documents in support of his statements, including certification of his election to the presidency of CEDOC at the congress held in April 1975, the records of the meetings of the CEDOC National Council held on 15-16 May 1976 and 18 February 1977, statements by various occupational and provincial federations, some of whom are affiliated to CEDOC, telegrams from the CLAT and the WCL recognising the executive headed by Mr. Cuisana Valencia, and a copy of a manifesto signed by all the occupational federations and the majority of the provincial federations refusing to attend the extraordinary congress convened at the initiative of Mr. Emilio Velasco for 3 and 4 July 1976.
4. 68. According to the report of the meeting of the CEDOC National Council held on 15 and 16 May 1976 a minority group consisting of persons who were not members of the Council and armed students broke into the hall and attempted to prevent the meeting from taking place normally. The police had been called in by a number of delegates to restore order, but refused to do so and scattered the workers who had gathered around the building where the meeting was being held in order to free the members of the Council A number of incidents subsequently took place in the hall. The persons from outside the Council obliged it to resume its discussions and circulated a document which they had prepared, demanding that the delegates sign it without having an opportunity to read it. Others were forced to sign a blank sheet of paper. Although they were obliged to sign this document the Council members totally rejected its contents. The armed students then exerted pressure to have the presidency of the Council given to Mr. Emilio Velasco, alleging that the President's resignation had already been accepted. Mr. Velasco began to direct the assembly, which was incomplete disorder. The students then obliged all the delegates to leave. The President, Mr. Cuisana Valencia, invited all the delegates to meet immediately on other premises. Over 50 per cent of the elected delegates went to that meeting and decided to approve the President's report, to refuse the resignation which he had submitted to the National Executive Committee, and to expel five members of the Executive Committee, including Mr. Emilio Velasco. The following day, the necessary quorum of 50 per cent having been obtained, Mr. Jorge Cuisana Valencia was confirmed in his office as National President of CEDOC.
5. 69. In its replies, the Government explained that on 8 April 1976 Mr. Jorge Cuisana Valencia had freely and willingly resigned his office as President of CEDOC, because of ideological and political differences with the members of the National Executive Committee.
6. 70. On 15 May 1976 the Extraordinary National Council of CEDOC had been convened by the National Executive Committee. The statutory quorum was respected at that meeting and the report submitted by Mr. Jorge Cuisana Valencia had been rejected because of its political nature. Furthermore, his resignation from the office of President of CEDOC had been accepted. The report of this assembly had been signed by all the persons present, including Mr. Jorge Cuisana Valencia.
7. 71. On the night of 15 to 16 May, Mr. Cuisana Valencia had convened and chaired another general assembly concerning which it was difficult to establish whether a quorum was obtained. This assembly confirmed Mr. Cuisana Valencia as President and expelled Mr. Emilio Velasco from his post of General Secretary.
8. 72. On 17 May Mr. Emilio Velasco informed the Minister of Labour that he was the new President of CEDOC, since the statutes of that organisation provide that the General Secretary replaces the President in the latter's absence. On 3 and 4 June 1976 the National Congress of CEDOC was convened by Mr. Emilio Velasco, acting President. The 600 delegates who were present unanimously elected Mr. Velasco as titular President.
9. 73. The Government also supplied a list of the organisations supporting Mr. Emilio Velasco and those supporting Mr. Cuisana Valencia. On 23 September 1976, it added, the head of the Department of Trade Union Organisations at the General Directorate of Labour submitted a report which was favourable to the Executive Committee chaired by Mr. Emilio Velasco. The Minister of Labour then recognised, registered and recorded the names of the members of the Executive Committee headed by Mr. Velasco, considering that all his activities as acting President were legitimate and that the National Congress at which he had been elected had been lawfully convened. In conclusion, the Government indicated that all the trade union organisations in the country belonged to one of two antagonistic groups which were in permanent conflict, producing situations which are dramatic for human relations and for the economic and social life of the country.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 74. The Committee notes that the present case relates to a dispute within a trade union organisation, the complainant contesting the representatively and the legitimacy of the election of the persons registered with the Minister of Labour as leaders of CEDOC. In general, the Committee considers that in such decisions the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activity. The Committee considers that it is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions of this nature, except in cases where a government is alleged to have intervened in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal operation of an organisation.
2. 75. In the present case the Committee considers that the matters at issue should be settled within the country itself with full respect for the principles of freedom of association. In this regard the Committee considers it useful to point out, as it has recently done in another case, that judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view, for the purpose of settling the question of the leadership and representation of the trade union federation concerned. Another possible means of settlement would be to appoint an independent arbitrator to be agreed on by the parties concerned, to seek a joint solution to existing problems and, if necessary, to hold new elections. In either case, the Government should recognise the leaders designated as legal representatives of the organisation.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 76. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to note that the case is essentially one of internal dissension within a trade union federation;
   • (b) to draw attention to the principles and considerations set forth in paragraphs 74 and 75 above with a view to settlement of the matters at issue, full account being taken of the right of organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom without interference by the authorities which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.