Definitive Report - Report No 316, June 1999

Case No 2002 (Chile) - Complaint date: 17-JAN-99 - Closed

Allegations: Refusal to allow a trade union leader to attend a ceremony

1. 327. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 17 January 1999 from the Single Central Organization of Chilean Workers (CUT). The Government replied in its communication of 22 February 1999.
2. 328. Chile 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 329. In its communication of 17 January 1999, the Single Central Organization of Chilean Workers (CUT) explains that it had for a long time been calling for the ratification by Chile of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, which was finally achieved due mainly to the CUT. The CUT adds that on 5 January 1999, the President of the Republic formally signed the instrument of ratification of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and others, which had been approved by the National Congress, in a formal ceremony. A number of trade union officials had been invited, including the National President of the CUT, Mr. Etiel Moraga Contreras, who was also invited in his capacity as President of Industrial Trade Union No. 8 of the company Codelco-Chile (Sewel y Mina, División El Teniente). However, when Mr. Etiel Moraga Contreras attempted to enter the Presidential Residence where the ceremony was due to take place, he was prevented from entering and left the premises together with other trade union officials who left as a gesture of solidarity in the face of the affront. The discrimination and offensive treatment suffered by the CUT President was an insult not only to him as an individual, which would in itself be a grave offence, but was also an affront to the trade union which he represented and to all Chilean workers affiliated to the CUT.
2. 330. The CUT adds that no union leader was invited to represent the CUT at the formal signing ceremony in question. It would appear that, as far as the Government is concerned, the CUT does not exist, or has been removed from its list of social organizations.
3. 331. According to the CUT, this incident did not come about by chance or as a result of a regrettable oversight, as has been claimed by certain authorities; on the contrary, it reflects the treatment meted out by the Government in recent times to the CUT and other organizations, predominantly in the public sector. The CUT states that an executive committee and national president were elected in democratic and autonomous elections, and considers that the Government, in refusing to acknowledge the representative nature of the union, showed a deplorable lack of consistency and tolerance. According to the CUT, the organization's national President, as its lawful representative, is entitled to deal with public or private bodies in all matters relating to the objectives set out in its statutes. The CUT considers that the Government has restricted the right laid down in Article 3, paragraph 1, of ILO Convention No. 87 and has infringed the union's right of representation under the terms of the Labour Code. Lastly, the CUT, while acknowledging that the Labour Directorate has already issued the appropriate certification, requests the Government, through the authority invested in the President of the Republic, to formally recognize the union's executive committee and national President.

B. The Government's reply

1. 332. In its communication of 22 February 1999, the Government states that on 5 January 1999, the President of the Republic Mr. Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, at a ceremony in the Presidential Residence, signed the instrument of ratification of the fundamental Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 105 and 138, which had been approved by the National Congress on 10 November 1998. The signing ceremony took place in the Montt-Varas room in the presence of some 200 invited guests, including members of the Labour and Social Security Committees of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, Government representatives, industrialists, trade union officials, heads of NGOs, trade union and trade associations, labour advocates, representatives of the Industrial Relations Association and of the Chilean Society for Labour Law, labour representatives, academics and university professors of labour law, and representatives of international organizations.
2. 333. The Government adds that in December 1998, the Office of the President sent out a large number of personal invitations for the signing ceremony. For that purpose, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security provided a list of people to be invited. The list included the following: (a) 18 Members of Parliament; (b) 46 Government representatives; (c) 17 senior officials of the Confederation of Production and Trade (employers); (d) 31 leaders of organizations affiliated to the Confederation of Production and Trade; (e) five directors of small enterprises representing CONUPIA; (f) 16 former leaders of the CUT; (g) 74 current leaders of the CUT; (h) 69 leaders of trade union federations and confederations in the Santiago Metropolitan Area and the Valparaíso Region; (i) 22 leaders of the National Association of Treasury Employees (public sector); (j) 166 leaders of workers' associations; (k) 83 trade union presidents; (l) 43 representatives of NGOs, union and trade associations; (m) 25 labour advocates, representatives of the Industrial Relations Association and the Chilean Society for Labour Law; (n) 37 academics, university professors and representatives of international organizations. The final guest list contained 652 people.
3. 334. The Government explains further that Mr. Etiel Moraga Contreras was included in the list in his dual capacity as President of the CUT and head of a trade union, and that in view of the large number of invitations issued and the limited capacity of the Montt-Varas room in the Palace where the ceremony was to be held, the palace guards refused to allow anyone else to enter once the room was full. For that reason, a number of people apart from Mr. Etiel Moraga Contreras were unable to enter. They included Mr. William Thayer Arteaga (a former Minister of Labour and Social Security, former Rector of the Universidad Austral de Valdivia, former Senator and President of the Senate Labour Affairs Committee); Mr. Eduardo Loyola Osorio (formerly Under-Secretary of State for Labour, labour advocate, formerly Chilean representative on the Governing Body of the ILO, currently Vice-President of Human Resources, Codelco-Chile); Ms. Gladys Laedger (Head of Office for the Director of Labour Affairs), and others.
4. 335. The Government concludes by stating that there has never been any discrimination against Mr. Etiel Moraga Contreras, nor was he prohibited from entering the Government Palace.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 336. The Committee notes that the complainant (the CUT) is critical of the fact that its President was prevented from attending an official ceremony for the signing by the Government of Chile of the instrument of ratification of a number of ILO Conventions (Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 105 and 138) which had been approved by the National Congress. The complainant also claims that no senior official was invited to represent the CUT at the ceremony, and that the organizations' representativeness and that of its new executive committee, as well as its right of representation, have thereby been called into question.
2. 337. The Committee takes note of the Government's statements in which it (1) denies that there has been any discrimination against the CUT President or other persons; (2) states that 652 people were invited to the ceremony, including 16 former leaders and 74 current leaders of the CUT; (3) states that the Montt-Varas room where the ceremony took place and where some 200 invited guests had gathered was full and for that reason the guards did not allow anyone else to enter; and (4) explains that other guests apart from the CUT President remained outside.
3. 338. The Committee concludes that the fact that the President of the CUT and many other people were unable to attend the ceremony of signing the instrument of ratification of a number of ILO Conventions (including Conventions Nos. 87 and 98) was the result of problems of organization, specifically, of the fact that the room used for the ceremony was not big enough to accommodate all the invited guests. The Committee particularly regrets the fact that the President of the CUT, an organization which for many years had called for the ratification of these Conventions, was unable to attend the ceremony as a result of the problems referred to, and trusts that it will be possible to prevent such problems arising in future. However, in the light of all the evidence available to it, and taking into account the fact that many other people were unable to enter the room where the ceremony was held, the Committee cannot confirm that there has been discrimination against the President of the CUT.
4. 339. As regards the allegation that the incident in question reflects the general treatment which the CUT has suffered in recent times, the Committee notes that the CUT makes no reference to any specific actions or attitudes directed against it. Under these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of the case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 340. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that the present case does not call for further examination.