Visualizar en: Francés - Español
A. A. The complainants' allegations
A. A. The complainants' allegations
- Analysis of the Complaint
- 130 The complaint presented by certain exiled trade union leaders of the Dominican Republic and endorsed by the Inter-American Confederation of Labor makes, in particular, the following allegations:
- (a) The Dominican General Confederation of Labour was forcibly dissolved in 1930, and since that time the Government has crushed all protests, strikes and other workers' demonstrations by means of repressive measures taken especially in 1936, 1942, 1946 and 1947 and has in this way effectively suppressed most of the trade union organisations. It authorised the Constitution only of the Dominican Confederation of Labour, a factitious body in the service of the Government.
- (b) By virtue of a Decree of 21 January 1936 instituting a " trade union day "-a Decree which is still in force-the Government interfered in the administration of existing trade union organisations.
- Analysis of the Reply
- 131 The observations presented by the Government give the following replies to these allegations:
- (a) The complainants are not representatives of trade union organisations but political agitators condemned by the ordinary courts for political offences and even for common-law crimes. Consequently they are not qualified to present the complaint.
- (b) The complaint is inspired by purely political motives.
- (c) Legislation in force assures full protection to the workers as is proved by the legal texts annexed to the reply. The Decree of 21 January 1936, in particular, has the sole object of promoting the development of trade unions.
- (d) The Dominican General Confederation of Labour was not dissolved in 1930 and no trade union organisation is controlled by the Government ; the Dominican Confederation of Labour in particular is an entirely independent organisation.
B. B. The Committee's conclusions
B. B. The Committee's conclusions
- 132. In denying that the four signatories of the complaint exiled from the country have any capacity as trade union representatives the Government considers that the complaint, emanating not from an organisation but from mere individuals, is not receivable. By the terms of the regulations governing the procedure, the only complaints receivable, with the exception of those officially transmitted to the International Labour Organisation by the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations are those emanating either from workers' or employers' organisations or from Governments.
- 133. The Committee has observed that the complaint was lodged not only by the four Dominican persons mentioned but also by the President of the Inter-American Confederation of Labour in the name of that organisation. It would appear, therefore, that on this ground alone the complaint is receivable whether the objections raised against the other signatories are justifiable or not. The fact that this organisation has since been dissolved and replaced by the Inter-American Regional Organisation of Workers, a regional organisation of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, does not, in the view of the Committee, affect the receivability of the complaint.
- 134. Relying on the argument that the four Dominican signatories are " politicians in exile, condemned by the courts ", the Government attributes a purely political character to the complaint. The Government states in particular: " The attitude of these persons has always been to stir up revolt inside and outside Dominican territory and it is for this reason that the complaint which they have signed has a purely political character. ".
- 135. In basing their complaint on the allegation that workers' organisations cannot exist or function freely, the complainants are submitting precise facts which, if proved, would make it impossible, seemingly, to reject the complaint on the ground that it is purely political in character, whatever the motive inspiring it may actually be.
- 136. Basing their argument on a series of repressive measures directed especially against trade union leaders and on the fact that only a single central trade union organisation under the control of the Government is authorised, the complainants claim that workers in the Dominican Republic do not have the right to organise freely according to their own choice.
- 137. Alleging, in the second place, that by virtue of a Decree of 21 January 1936 existing organisations are placed under the control of the Government, the complainants claim that the Government interferes in the administration of trade unions.
- 138. Without attempting at this stage to examine in detail the legislation mentioned in the Government's reply, the Committee would point out that this legislation is evidence only of the present legal situation of occupational organisations and not of the factual situation which is the principal element in the complaint.
- 139. So far as the allegations relating to the factual situation of trade unions are concerned, the versions of the events given by the complainants and by the Government differ fundamentally and, without a preliminary enquiry on the spot, it would no doubt be impossible to decide as to their respective merits.
The Committee's recommendations
The Committee's recommendations
- 140. It would however appear from the analysis of the facts in issue that the complaint is sufficiently precise to make possible and desirable a more-detailed examination of the facts.
- 141. In these circumstances the Committee recommends that the case merits further examination by the Governing Body.
- 142. Neither the Venezuelan Government nor the Dominican Government has been formally requested to indicate whether it would be willing to consent to reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission. Under the procedure laid down by the Governing Body this question does not arise until the Governing Body itself has decided that the Government concerned shall be asked to give its consent to reference of the matter to the Fact-Finding Commission. Although both Governments have indicated in their preliminary observations on the complaints that they would not be willing to consent to such reference, the Committee does not consider that such a preliminary reply precludes the Governing Body from discussing further whether it is advisable to make a formal request to the Government concerned that it should consent to reference of a case to the Fact-Finding Commission. They venture to hope that in future cases the preliminary observations of Governments will not anticipate any request which the Governing Body may or may not think it appropriate to make after it has had an opportunity of considering the facts of the case and expressing its views. In respect of these cases the Committee suggests that the Governing Body should authorise it to afford an opportunity to the Governments concerned to discuss with the Committee the questions at issue before the Committee attempts to formulate any further recommendations on the subject for consideration by the Governing Body. The Committee ventures to hope that such discussion might result in the Governments concerned indicating steps which they are taking or would be prepared to take to give effect to the principle of freedom of association.
