Informe provisional - Informe núm. 30, 1960

Caso núm. 143 (España) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 15-ABR-59 - Cerrado

1. 109. At its 19th Session (Geneva, February 1958) the Committee continued its examination of the complaint submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions regarding penalties imposed on officers and members of the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile, the National Confederation of Labour and the Solidaridad of Basque Workers, dated 13 August 1956, and of the complaint submitted by the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile regarding the right to strike and its proscription as a crime in Spain, dated 25 April 1957-in the light of the Spanish Government's observations, dated 22 February 1958.

110. In its letter of 13 August 1956 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions alleges that the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile, the National Con federation of Labour and the Solidaridad of Basque Workers having been declared illegal in 1936, its leaders were sentenced to death or imprisonment.

1. 111. In its letter of 25 April 1957, the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile states that in Spain to go on strike is a crime punishable by 6-12 years' imprisonment, and that responsibility for the strike is placed not only on those who take part but also on those whose record indicates their responsibility. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions also expresses this view in its letter of 13 August 1956.
2. 112. In its letter of 22 February 1958 the Government stated that the Collective Agreements Bill, with regard to which the Governing Body had requested information, was before the Spanish Parliament ; and that " no members or leaders of the abovementioned organisations are at present in prison or under detention either on account of their membership or official position ... or for any other type of trade union activity ". On the other hand the Government did not refer to the allegations that penal legislation permits penalties to be imposed on persons who take part in a strike.
3. 113. In paragraph 106 of its 28th Report, which was approved by the Governing Body at the 138th Session (Geneva, February-March 1958), the Committee said: " It is not clear from the Government's reply whether it intends to indicate that no members or leaders of the three named trade union organisations are in prison or detention on any ground whatsoever, or that no such persons are in prison or detention because of their trade union membership, leadership or activities (as distinct ... from high treason or other criminal offences) ".
4. 114. Accordingly, taking all these circumstances into account, the Committee submitted a provisional report (paragraph 110 of the 28th Report of the Committee) in which it recommended the Governing Body - as regards the Collective Agreements Bill - to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principle that measures appropriate to national conditions should be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by this means ; and to express the hope that full account would be taken of the aforesaid principle in the Bill then under consideration and that it would be communicated at an early date. As regards the allegation concerning the arrest of members and leaders of the former Spanish occupational organisations, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to inform it whether members or leaders of the General Union of Workers, the National Confederation of Labour, or the Solidaridad of Basque Workers were still held in penitentiaries or other places of detention on any grounds, and if so on what grounds, and in the latter event to inform the Governing Body as to the nature of the procedure according to which they were tried, the legal guarantees and safeguards afforded by such procedure and if possible to transmit the text of the judgments given. Lastly, as regards the allegation that strikes are prohibited, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to be good enough to furnish information as to whether striking in Spain is a crime punishable by any of the penalties referred to in paragraph 108 of the report or in any other way.
5. 115. On 17 December 1957 the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile sent additional information on " social hostages " and made allegations regarding the arrest of strikers and trade unionists. These were duly communicated to the Government.
6. 116. Since the last session of the Committee in February 1958, various other complaints and additional information have been received from the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile (dated 31 March and 6 May 1958), the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (dated 25 March, 2 May and 10 July 1958), the World Federation of Trade Unions (dated 15 May and 7 August 1958) and the Miners' International Federation (dated 21 August and 23 September 1958) relating to alleged violation of freedom of association in Spain, in connection, mainly, with the labour unrest which occurred in the north of that country during March 1958. The complaint of the Miners' International Federation repeats in short terms the allegations formulated in more detailed terms by the other organisations referred to and is, therefore, not analysed in detail in the body of this report.
7. 117. These complaints were all transmitted to the Spanish Government, which sent (on 30 May 1958) a reply to the provisional report on Spain prepared by the Committee at its 19th Session, and also replied (by letters dated 29 April and 17 October 1958) to the allegations mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
8. Legislation on Collective Agreements
9. 118. On 30 May 1958 the Spanish Government sent its observations on the recommendations contained in paragraph 110 of the 28th Report of the Committee (Geneva, February 1958). In its 28th Report the Committee recommended the Governing Body:
10. (a) to note the Government's statement that the Collective Agreements Bill is now being considered by a Committee of the Cortes and that a revised text will be laid before the Cortes and:
11. (i) to draw the attention of the Government once again to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principles that measures appropriate to national conditions should be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements ;
12. (ii) to express the hope that full account will be taken of the aforesaid principle in the Bill now under consideration and that such Bill be enacted at an early date;
13. (iii) to request the Government to be good enough to keep the Governing Body informed of further developments in this connection.
14. In its letter dated 30 May 1958 the Government stated that the Collective Agreements Bill had been approved and promulgated on 24 April 1958.
15. 119. According to the Government's statement, the main characteristics of the new Act are as follows: Scope: collective agreements may cover all undertakings in any one occupation, a group of undertakings with common characteristics, a single undertaking, or a group or section of the workers in an undertaking. Capacity to enter into agreements : the representatives of employers and workers in the national, provincial and local unions are considered to have this capacity ; if an agreement covers a single undertaking, the statutory representatives of the undertaking and the union stewards elected by the personnel are considered to have the capacity to negotiate for the parties. Contents of agreements : collective agreements may contain clauses relating to the fixing of rates of pay, incentive and output bonuses, standards of skill, methods of work, reduction in hours, workers' welfare services and all matters affecting the rights and benefits of the workers, the organisation and output of undertakings and labour-management co-operation. Duration of agreements : agreements are valid for two years with tacit renewal year by year, unless the contrary is stipulated in the agreement. Force of agreements : they are binding on the parties exclusively, but may be extended in whole or in part to other undertakings and workers who were not represented, by agreement between the employers and workers who wish the coverage to be extended. Trade unions' freedom to conclude agreements : these are drawn up without interference by the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for registration and official publication, but if there is disagreement between the parties they may apply to the Ministry to appoint a representative who will preside over the discussions and seek to reconcile the differing views. Jurisdiction and inspection in connection with agreements : failure to comply with an agreement gives the injured party the right to apply to the labour courts ; supervision of application of agreements is entrusted to the labour inspection service.
16. 120. The Committee notes with interest the progress made in this connection through the enactment of a law which accords to the workers the right to bargain collectively for the purpose of determining conditions of employment.
17. 121. The Committee observes that, according to what is stated in the Government's letter, " agreements are drawn up without interference by the Ministry of Labour". The Government also states in its report on the application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) submitted on 27 September 1958 under article 19 of the Constitution of the I.L.O, that " no previous administrative authorisation is necessary for the initiation of negotiations and the conclusion of corresponding agreements ".
18. 122. However, with respect to the application or putting into effect of an agreement which has been concluded, the Committee observes that sections 13 and 14 of the Collective Agreements Act provide as follows:
19. Section 13. Once the union collective agreement (convenio colectivo sindical) has been agreed on by the parties, it shall be transmitted to the provincial or national trade union delegate (whichever is appropriate having regard to the scope of the agreement) and he shall remit it most urgently, accompanied by the prescribed report, to the provincial labour office or the Director-General of Labour as the case may be. Within a maximum of five working days from its reception by the competent labour authority, the latter shall approve the agreement, declare null any part of in which suffers from irremediable essential defect, or return it unapproved, giving the trade union organisation the reasons for his decision. The effect of such return shall be that the agreement reverts to the discussion stage.
20. Any of the parties, through the trade union organisation, may appeal, in the manner prescribed by regulation, against the decision to return an agreement unapproved. Failure to return an agreement within the above-mentioned period shall signify its approval by the competent authority.
21. Section 14. If, in accordance with the last paragraph of section 12 of the present Act, the parties to an agreement report that some of the stipulations mentioned might cause an increase in prices, the consent of the Government Commission (Comisión delgada del Gobierno) for Economic Affairs, which will be requested through the national trade union delegate, shall be required for continuance of the procedure in respect of this agreement. If the said Commission does not express its dissent within two months of the date at which the request reached the relevant office, the procedure prescribed in section 13 above shall be resumed. When remitting such an agreement the trade union organisation shall append, beside the report or reports made by the parties and referred to in section 12, another report by the Economic and Trade Union Council (Consejo Económico Sindical) which is competent having regard to the scope of the agreement.
22. Furthermore, the Regulations concerning the Collective Agreements Act, approved by an Order dated 22 July 1958, contain the following clauses which are relevant in this connection:
23. Section 18. Competence of the Government Committee for Economic Matters.
24. (1) In the cases referred to in subparagraphs 2 and 4 of the preceding sections (with respect to agreements involving changes in remuneration which may affect prices) the final approval of the agreement is dependent on the prior consent, express or implied, of the Government Committee for Economic Matters, which is to be requested directly by the National Trade Union Delegation through the Presidency of the Government ; to this request shall be appended the text of the agreement, the statements made by the parties and the opinion of the Trade Union Economic Council competent in respect of the area of application of the agreement.
25. (2) If after the lapse of two months, calculated from the date on which the request has been filed with the appropriate office, the Government Committee has not expressed any disapproval, the Committee is to be considered as having implicitly authorised the agreement, which will be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of the preceding section.
26. (3) If the Committee, within the said period, expresses its objection to the agreement it shall inform the National Trade Union Delegation accordingly in order to enable it to take account of the objection according to the relevant regulations ; once this has been done the file shall be sent back to the said Committee for final decision within the said period of two months.
27. Section 19. Resolution of the Ministry of Labour.
28. (1) The text of the agreement and additional documentation having been received, the competent labour authority, within 15 days of the filing thereof in the Registry of the Provincial Delegation or of the General Labour Directorate, will adopt, as appropriate, one of the following resolutions.
29. (2) Approval
30. ......................................................................................................................................................
31. (3) Disapproval Approval will be refused when the reasons for inoperativeness laid down in the following section subsist.
32. Section 20. Reasons for inoperativeness of agreements. The Provincial Delegation of the Director-General of Labour, within the period of 15 days laid down in section 19, shall refuse to approve an agreement, declaring it to be inoperative, whenever any of the following reasons subsists:
33. (1) Total inoperativeness, because of a defect which cannot be remedied, if it appears that either party has resorted to misrepresentation, fraud or coercion in order to obtain the concurrence of the other party.
34. (2) Partial inoperativeness, because of a defect which may be remedied, if any of the following conditions subsists:
35. (a) if the standards in regulations have not been observed in the formulation of the opening of negotiations, in the convocation of the parties, in the negotiations or in the points of agreement ;
36. (b) if the agreement contains provisions or clauses which contravene the rights of the workers laid down in laws, decrees, orders, labour regulations or any other official prescriptions whatsoever ;
37. (c) if the agreement covers undertakings not covered by the labour regulations fundamentally applicable ;
38. (d) if standards or clauses are established by the agreement which imply an infringement of the legal provisions relating to the recognised rights of undertakings with respect to the organisation of work or are contrary to the requirements of economic progress and productivity ;
39. (e) if the agreement includes provisions which infringe the principle of co-operation between the personal elements in the labour community in which the undertaking consists or are opposed to the needs of discipline and social peace ;
40. (f) if the agreement includes clauses or provisions which fail to recognise, restrict or derogate powers which the legal system attributes to the authorities and officials of the State.
41. 123. Article 4 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), provides that "measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements ". The Committee has already observed in a previous case that the requirement of previous approval by a government authority to make an agreement valid might in certain circumstances discourage the use of voluntary collective bargaining between employers and workers for the settlement of conditions of work. " In these circumstances ", it stated, " even though a refusal by the Government to give its approval may be the subject of an appeal in the courts, the system of official approval in itself is contrary to the whole system of voluntary negotiation. In Case No. 102 (Union of South Africa) the Committee again emphasised the importance it attaches to the principle that the trade unions shall have the right by collective bargaining ... to seek to improve the living and working conditions of their members, and that the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right ".
42. 124. In the present case the Committee recommends the Governing Body : to note that, as the result of the promulgation of the Collective Agreements Act, previous administrative authorisation for the initiation of negotiations and the conclusion of collective agreements is not necessary ; to note that it is necessary to submit the agreements, once they have been concluded, to the competent authorities for their approval, and that agreements do not enter into force if they are disapproved; to draw attention to the incompatibility of such a requirement in normal circumstances with the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements; and to request the Spanish Government to be so good as to inform the Governing Body of the proportion of cases and the circumstances in which agreements are not approved as originally submitted and, in general terms, of the action taken in such cases.
43. Allegations regarding the Legal Prohibition of the Right to Strike
44. 125. In its communication dated 25 April 1957 the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile contends that in Spain the right to strike constitutes an offence punishable by a period of imprisonment of between six and 12 years. The law makes it possible to convict not only those who actually take part in a strike movement but those whom the authorities have grounds to believe have taken part in it. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions makes the same allegation in its memorandum dated 13 August 1956, which states that the Government does not recognise the right to strike and that it uses force to break any movements for better conditions which may take place.
45. 126. In its communication dated 30 May 1958 the Government states that under the Spanish legal system the lawful rights of the workers are safeguarded by means of the trade unions. Trade union officials at the local, provincial and national levels are elected freely by the workers themselves in accordance with the procedure laid down in the regulations dated 22 May 1947. In addition the labour inspectorate ensures that employers carry out their social obligations and there are also labour courts to which the workers can appeal without charge. Section 218 of the Penal Code prescribes punishments for sedition, which is defined as a public and riotous outbreak intended to achieve by violent and non-legal means certain ends (which are listed) and which cannot be allowed if the authority of the State and public order are to be maintained. The Government statement adds that " only when workers act seditiously can they be punished under section 222 of the Penal Code; they cannot be punished merely for stopping work ". Demands have been made in Spain which were outside the law but these disputes and the stoppages of work which accompanied some of them have been settled without being treated by the authorities as criminal sedition. This does not mean that should there be any coercion, illegal occupation of factories, etc., during a dispute such actions would remain unpunished since they would no longer be strikes in the proper sense of the term. The Government confines itself to taking the steps needed to ensure peace and social order, while at the same time scrupulously enforcing the law.
46. 127. The Committee observes that section XI (2) of the Labour Charter states that " individual or collective actions which in any way disturb the normal flow of production or threaten to do so shall be treated as offences against the State ". The State Security Act of 29 March 1941 reads as follows:
47. Section 44. Lockouts by employers and strikes by workers shall be punishable with a period of imprisonment ranging from three to five years. Their promoters, organisers and leaders shall be liable to a period of from five to eight years' imprisonment. The court, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and of the offender himself, particularly his financial position, may in addition to the foregoing penalties inflict a fine ranging from 5,000 to 50,000 pesetas.
48. Section 45. Persons who use violence or intimidation in committing the offences specified in sections 43 and 44 shall be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from six years and a day to eight years.
49. Section 46. Any person who in any way causes the suspension or disruption of the public services specified in section 43 or the lockout or strike referred to in section 44 shall be punished with a period of from one to three years' imprisonment.
50. If the offences referred to in the previous section are committed as a result of this provocation, a penalty of between three and six years' imprisonment shall be inflicted.
51. In addition section 222 of the Penal Code (referred to in the Government's note) states:
52. Section 222. The following shall be guilty of sedition:
53. (1) Officials or employees responsible for any type of public service and individuals who by the nature of their occupation perform services which are recognised to be of vital importance and who threaten the security of the State, disrupt its normal functioning or impair its authority or prestige by stopping work or reducing the regularity of the service.
54. (2) Combinations of employers designed to paralyse work.
55. (3) Strikes by workers.
56. Section 223. Persons guilty of the offences specified in the foregoing section shall be punished:
57. (1) By a term of imprisonment if they are the promoters, organisers or leaders or if they use violence or intimidation in committing the aforesaid offences.
58. (2) By a period in custody in other cases.
59. The court, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, particularly his financial position, may in addition to the foregoing penalties inflict a fine of between 5,000 and 50,000 pesetas.
60. In their writings, moreover, contemporary Spanish jurists refer to these texts, stating that on the basis thereof striking constitutes a crime in Spain.
61. 128. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the Government's statement that " only when workers behave seditiously, and not on account of leaving their work, can they be punished under article 222 of the Criminal Code" and that " even stoppages have been dealt with by the competent authorities without considering that such activities may be seditious in law ".
62. 129. The Committee nevertheless considers that the legal provisions cited in paragraph 127 above appear to be so broad in their terms as to be susceptible of application in a manner incompatible with freedom of association, even though they may not at present be applied in practice. In certain previous cases,the Committee has considered that allegations regarding the prohibition of the right to strike are not outside its competence in so far as such a prohibition affects the exercise of trade union rights.
63. 130. In a number of cases the Committee has been called upon to give its views on various aspects of the right to strike. Thus it has stated that "in most countries strikes are recognised as a legitimate weapon of trade unions in furtherance of their members' interests so long as they are exercised peacefully and with due regard to temporary restrictions placed thereon ". The Committee has likewise repeatedly stated that normally workers and their organisations are granted the right to strike as a legitimate means of furthering their occupational interests. In the special cases (public services and essential industries) in which this right is subject to statutory restrictions the Committee has attached importance to the existence of a procedure to ensure a peaceful settlement of disputes affording appropriate guarantees to the workers who may not have recourse to strikes. In these same cases the Committee has declared " Although a strike may be temporarily restricted by law ... until existing facilities for negotiation, conciliation and arbitration can be brought to bear, such limitation or counteraction must be accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties concerning can take part at every stage."
64. 131. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
65. (a) to take note of the Government's statement to the effect that workers cannot be punished under article 222 of the Criminal Code merely on account of leaving their work;
66. (b) to ask the Spanish Government, having regard to the fact that the relationship between " stoppages of work " and " strikes " does not appear to be entirely clear and to the fact that the penal clauses relating to strikes appear to be so broad in their terms as to be susceptible of application in a manner incompatible with freedom of association, to inform the Governing Body whether the necessary steps have been taken to ensure this interpretation of the law is fully appreciated by the authorities responsible for initiating legal proceedings ; and
67. (c) to ask the Government whether it is studying the possibility of amending the provisions of the Criminal Code, the Labour Charter and the State Security Act relating to the prohibition of strikes referred to in paragraph 127 above in the light of the policy indicated by the Government.
68. Allegations regarding the Strikes of March 1958
69. 132. The General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile has submitted a complaint dated 31 March 1958 regarding the strikes which occurred in the Asturias during March 1958. This communication quotes an order issued by the Council of Ministers on 14 March of that year, suspending sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Charter of the Spanish People for a period of four months in the coal-mining provinces (by virtue of the powers conferred by section 35 of the Charter). At the same time various sections of the Public Order Act of 26 July 1945 were put into force.
70. 133. The same complaint reproduces a description of various events connected with the strike which has been received from under-cover trade union organisations. This account states that the strike was due to the fact that after the strikes of 1956 the Government readjusted wages to the miners' detriment. The immediate result was the demand for higher wages which occurred at the Maria Luisa pit in the spring of 1957. The account goes on to explain that the miners are paid a basic wage plus an output bonus which may not exceed 100 per cent of the basic wage. Since the events of 1957 the collieries have exceeded this official maximum ; production of coal rose by 11 per cent, whereupon the Minister announced that a satisfactory level of output had been reached, thereby depriving the coal-owners of any incentive to keep up the volume of output. Accordingly the employers reduced the output bonus, and when a number of miners at the Maria Luisa pit protested at the beginning of March 1958 they were dismissed. The workers then showed their solidarity by cutting production to a level just above the official minimum and for this they were dismissed ; owing to the scale of the movement this led to the closing of various mines. When the number of workers involved had reached a total of 15,000 the Government decided to send in detachments of the Civil Guard. Reprisals are stated to have been taken even against workers who did not take part in the strike, while the number of men dismissed rose to approximately 40. According to this account some miners who were performing their military service in the mines were called up. The miners appealed to their official representatives in the trade union but were told that it was impossible to intervene in the dispute since it was a question of public order. The complainants contend that this was not a political strike but a lockout backed up by the authorities. The account ends by quoting an announcement by the Governor of the Asturias warning the miners that the Government would enforce the full rigour of the law and stating that instructions had been given to the employers to open up their undertakings with effect from 17 March.
71. 134. On 6 May 1958 the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile forwarded an additional statement about these strikes, supplying figures and giving the names of workers dismissed and detained in Catalonia, Asturias, Levante and Bilbao. It also reproduces two announcements made by the delegate of the Ministry of Labour, Laudelino León, on 2 April 1958, which deal with the dismissal of workers from the Aranzábal S.A. steel works on the ground that they had abandoned their posts; the delegate gave a warning that any repetition by the workers would lead to their automatic dismissal and he also informed the employers that they must not make any change in existing conditions of work as a result of coercive action by the workers.
72. 135. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has also submitted a complaint dated 25 March 1958 following the measures taken by the Government to deal with the strike in the coalfield around Oviedo. The complainant asserts that the Government suspended a number of guarantees contained in the Charter of the Spanish People and that it called up the strikers and their leaders into the army. According to the complaint, the strike was caused by the rejection of a claim for higher wages and for a six-hour day for underground miners.
73. 136. The same complainant has supplied an additional statement dated 2 May 1958, which asserts that the police searched a number of homes in the Asturias, detaining and ill-treating a great many workers and forcing others to leave the district. Similar strike movements in support of economic claims have also occurred in the provinces of Guipúzcoa and Catalonia. The Civil Governor of Barcelona is stated to have ordered the workers in one factory to go back to their jobs, and when this had no effect to have ordered the closing of all the factories affected by the strike and to have prohibited any change in contracts of employment without his permission. The origin of the strike is stated to have been the rejection by the employers of the workers' wage claims. Following the strike a number of reprisals were taken, such as the dismissal, detention and deportation of strikers.
74. 137. A final additional statement was received from the International Federation of Free Trade Unions on 10 July 1958. It is mainly taken up with a denunciation of the harsh behaviour of the police towards the strikers. The account states that two workers at the Nalon coal mine who were detained at the beginning of the strike are now interned in the " La Cadellada " mental hospital on the outskirts of Oviedo, the capital of the Asturias. It also reports two suicide attempts which took place at the police headquarters of the same town. The complainants claim that they were able to talk to some of the former detainees who declared that they had been tortured during their interrogation by the special police detachment sent from Madrid with the aim of forcing them to confess that they belonged to Communist cells. At the date when the communication was despatched there were 34 workers still under detention and awaiting trial, and those who had been once more set at liberty had received orders to live in other provinces. The same punishment is stated to have been inflicted even on workers who had not been detained. The case is quoted of a union steward who was sentenced to deportation for having complained to his employer about various labour matters, and it is asserted that similar cases occur fairly frequently. Representations by the workers to the trade unions never come to anything, since the unions admit that they have no power to act in matters which fall within the sphere of the Government.
75. 138. The World Federation of Trade Unions has also supplied information about the foregoing strikes. This complainant states in a letter dated 15 May 1958 that a strike movement broke out in the Oviedo coal field during March and this led to sympathy strikes elsewhere. The Government suspended a number of the guarantees of the Charter of the Spanish People and used repression against the miners. In Barcelona, a similar movement broke out involving some 50,000 workers and the Government once more resorted to similar action, as also in the Basque country where an order was issued forbidding any wage increases under pain of punishment. Following the strike, a number of union stewards were detained and their names are given in the letter.
76. 139. In addition, the World Federation of Trade Unions forwarded on 7 August 1958 a message stated to come from workers who were detained in Barcelona. This message asserts that the aims of the strikes were purely economic and describes prevalent working conditions, e.g. a state of affairs in which a working day of ten, and even up to 16 hours, is " normal ". It goes on to state that the workers had no option but to protest following the failure of their discussions with the trade unions which refused to give them any support. Although the stoppage was peaceful, it led to the closing of the factories by the Civil Governor, General Felipe Acedo Colunga, and the detention of large numbers of workers, including several trade union representatives, many of whom it is proposed to try by court martial. The message concludes by mentioning 64 workers and trade unionists who had been tried after being ill-treated at the Barcelona police headquarters in order to make them confess that they belonged to a Communist-inspired movement.
77. 140. In reply to the various complaints relating to the strikes of March 1958, the Government declares, in its letters dated 29 April and 17 October 1958, that the workers in some of the coal mines in the Asturias gradually reduced their output. This virtually paralysed certain pits despite the fact that the miners turned up for work in the normal way. The employers, faced with a drop in output, took disciplinary action such as the suspension of the miners concerned and, meanwhile, initiated the procedure laid down by law. The movement spread, apparently out of solidarity on the part of the other miners, upon which the employers suspended operations and informed the authorities. The Government states that there were no lockouts because the closing down of the undertakings was effected with the approval of the authorities and was merely a consequence of the illegal position taken up by the workers; the movements in Barcelona, Guipúzcoa and Alava followed the same pattern. The Government declares that there were no real strikes, therefore, but a deliberate reduction of output which developed into an illegal occupation of the undertakings. The Government declares that the situation was not a labour dispute within the meaning of the law and that no request for a change in working conditions or complaint on the subject was received by the labour authorities. Claims could have been presented through the trade union committees whose members, states the Government, are freely elected in accordance with the regulations of 22 March 1947. Subsequent investigations showed that the movement was a subversive plot designed to disrupt one of the key branches of the Spanish economy. The Government adds that the strikers belong to one of the sections of the population with the largest incomes and social benefits. In view of the scale of the movement, the Government decided to suspend for a period of four months sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Charter of the Spanish People (in accordance with the provisions of section 35 of the Charter), thus putting into effect the terms of sections 40 to 47 of the Public Order Act of 28 July 1933 dealing with states of emergency. The Government concludes by stating that it has abided scrupulously by the law and that none of the measures it has taken involve any curtailment of trade union rights, which remain in force in accordance with the Act of 6 December 1940. At present legal proceedings are taking place before the competent courts but only in the more serious cases and with respect to the principal accused. Finally, declares the Government, it is hardly strange that those involved in the illegal activities described should forfeit their legal rights as workers in consequence of the unilateral breach of contracts of employment.
78. 141. The Government states in its communication of 29 April that "no claim had been put forward regarding labour conditions" and that the movement "did not arise out of any labour dispute within the meaning of the law, since no application for a change in working conditions, or complaint on the subject had been submitted to the official labour authorities ".
79. 142. Under the decree of 17 July 1948, trade unions are represented by " union stewards " except in undertakings where there are works committees. The stewards represent the workers and technicians in their relations with employers and the higher trade union organisations and are elected by the members whom they represent. The decree of 11 September 1953 regulates " works committees " which are joint bodies and the " basic units of the trade union organisation " ; their task is to " deal with any claims put forward by the workers, the members of the committee itself or the employer regarding failure to implement labour legislation or to carry out the social duties of capital and labour" (section 46). The Committee is "the proper channel for any views or requests that the employees may wish to bring to the notice of the management and for any complaints which the latter may have regarding the manner in which the workers carry out their obligations " (section 57).
80. 143. The sections of the Charter of the Spanish People which have been suspended are worded as follows:
81. Section 14. All Spaniards shall be entitled to reside anywhere in the country.
82. Section 15. No person may enter or search the home of a Spaniard without his consent, except with a warrant issued by the appropriate authority, in the cases and manner prescribed by law.
83. Section 18. No Spaniard may be detained except in the cases and manner prescribed by law. Every detainee must be set free or handed over to the judicial authorities within a period of 72 hours.
84. 144. It is clear from the foregoing that, according to the three complaining organisations, the strikes were due to the rejection of the workers' pay claims by the employers and the solidarity of the workers when faced with the employers' reaction. The allegations also refer to the precarious economic position of the workers involved in the strike. The Government, on the other hand, denies that any claims were made and asserts that the workers who took part were drawing substantial wages and benefits and goes on to argue that everything pointed towards a systematic attempt at subversion, manifested by a deliberate reduction of output which developed into an illegal occupation of the undertakings. It should be added, however, that the message from the detainees in Barcelona which accompanied the letter dated 7 August 1958 from the World Federation of Trade Unions, does refer to a claim which had been made earlier by the workers through trade union channels, but which came to nothing. The other communications appear to show that the workers appealed to the union after the dispute began, but received no support because the union leaders refused to intervene. The Government makes no reference to this last allegation.
85. 145. It is also clear from the foregoing that, when confronted with these events, the Government suspended certain guarantees of the Charter of the Spanish People and arrested, called up or deported a number of workers. It also appears to have taken various forms of disciplinary action, not only against workers who took part in the strikes, but also against others who did not. Lastly, the complaints refer repeatedly to the ill-treatment and torture of the detainees.
86. 146. If in certain cases' the Committee has reached the conclusion that allegations relating to measures taken against trade unionists did not call for further examination, this was only after it had received information from the governments showing sufficiently precisely and with sufficient detail that the measures were in no way occasioned by trade union activities, but solely by activities outside the trade union sphere which were either prejudicial to public order or of a political nature.
87. 147. In this connection, and in view of the discrepancy between the very full information supplied by the complainants with a view to showing that the strike was due to economic grievances and the Government's statements that the movement was a subversive plot, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to request the Spanish Government to supply more detailed information on this aspect of the case.
88. 148. As regards the allegations relating to the ill-treatment of and other punitive measures against workers who took part in the strikes, and also as regards the legal proceedings referred to by the Government, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to draw attention once again to the importance that it has always attached to the right of trade unionists, like all other persons, to enjoy the guarantees afforded by due process of law, in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to request the Government to supply more detailed information on these aspects of the case.
89. Allegations relating to the Detention of Leaders and Members of Certain Dissolved Trade Union Organisations
90. 149. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions in its letter dated 13 August 1956 alleges that the political and social organisations which formed part of the Popular Front were dissolved on 13 September 1936. An Act was passed on 9 February 1939 dissolving the General Workers' Union, the National Confederation of Workers and the Federation of Basque Workers, and the leaders of these trade union organisations were tried and sentenced, one of them to death and the others to terms of imprisonment ranging from 20 to 30 years.
91. 150. In its communication dated 30 May 1958 the Government repeats the statements it made in its reply to the request for information decided on at the 130th Session of the Governing Body, to the effect that no member or leader of the organisations concerned is detained or imprisoned because of his membership of the organisations in question or for any other form of trade union activity.
92. 151. In dealing with this feature of the case (in its 28th Report) the Committee considered that the Government's reply was by no means clear, since the individuals in question could quite well have been imprisoned because of offences which were treated as treason, or some similar offence. Accordingly the Committee, while recognising that charges of high treason or crimes of a similar nature tried by national courts were outside the competence of the I.L.O, stated that the question whether such charges based on facts and allegations involving the exercise of trade union rights should be considered as a matter of high treason or other similar crimes or as a matter connected with the exercise of trade union rights could not be decided unilaterally by the governments concerned in such a way as to prevent the Governing Body from pursuing its investigations.
93. 152. The Committee recommends the Governing Body to take note of the fact that on two previous occasions it has decided to request the Government to furnish information concerning the detention of former members and leaders of the trade union organisations referred to in the complaint. The Governing Body approved the 27th Report of the Committee, in paragraph 187 (i) of which the Governing Body was recommended:
94. ... to request the Spanish Government to state whether members or leaders of the General Workers' Union, the National Confederation of Workers or the Association of Basque Workers are still held in penitentiaries or other places of detention, and pending the receipt of this information, to take note of the present interim report.
95. Again, the Governing Body approved the 28th Report of the Committee, in paragraph 110 (b) of which the Governing Body was recommended:
96. ... to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body whether members or leaders of the General Workers' Union, the National Confederation of Workers or the Association of Basque Workers are still held in penitentiaries or other places of detention on any grounds and, if so, on what grounds, and, in the latter event, to inform the Governing Body as to the nature of the procedure according to which they were tried and the legal guarantees and safeguards afforded by such procedure and as far as possible to furnish the texts of the judgments given.
97. The only answer received by the Governing Body from the Spanish Government is the reply that:
98. ... no member or leader of the said organisations is in prison or detention at the present time either because of his membership of or leadership in the same or because of any other kind of trade union activity.
99. 153. In these circumstances, the Committee also recommends the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Spanish Government to the importance that it has always attached to the principle of a prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions.
100. Allegations relating to "Social Detainees"
101. 154. The General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile supplied an additional statement on 17 December 1957 dealing with the allegations it put forward in its letter of 22 August 1956 regarding the imprisonment of various individuals as " social detainees ". In this communication it quotes word for word a verdict passed on 10 December 1948 by an ordinary court martial, after a summary trial, on Emilio Salgado Moreira for the crime of military rebellion. The judgment stated that Moreira, together with Eduardo Villegas, Vicente Orche and Leopoldo Mejorada formed in 1945 the National Executive Committee of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. The accused acted as press and propaganda secretary and acquired a printing press for the publication of the clandestine periodical Socialista, as well as the periodicals of the General Union of Workers and the " Renovación " movement as well as extracts from a speech made by Prieto in Mexico and safe conduct cards. In 1946 Salgado represented the Socialist Party inside Spain at a congress held in Paris. He subsequently worked in the records section of the General Union of Workers in France and received money from the organisation known as " Aid to the Spanish Socialist Party in Exile ". He then returned to Spain and was arrested in August 1947. After being tried for breach of section 288 of the Code of Military Justice and section 1 of the Act of 2 March 1923, Salgado was sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment for the crime of military rebellion. This sentence was confirmed by a decree issued by the judicial authorities.
102. 155. In the same communication from the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile there is a brief reference to Eduardo Villegas ; it is stated that the Spanish Government has supplied no item of proof to support its charges against this individual. It has denied that Villegas persecuted any of the employees of the Mortgage Bank, as is alleged by the Government, and it is also claimed that he was arrested in circumstances which involved a breach of international law, since he was at the time in a car of the United States Embassy leaving Madrid in the company of an official of the Embassy.
103. 156. On 6 May 1958 the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile stated that Felix Carrasquer, a trade union leader, had been detained in 1946 on the ground that he was the regional secretary for Catalonia of the National Federation of Labour; he was set free on probation in 1947. In the same year he was rearrested, this time charged with being a member of the National Committee of the National Federation of Labour in Madrid. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison, later reduced to 20.
104. 157. The Government, in a letter dated 15 October 1957, replying to the allegations made by the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile, in its letter of 22 August 1956, stated that Eduardo Villegas had been sentenced in 1934 for revolutionary activities and that between 1936 and 1939 he savagely persecuted certain employees of the Mortgage Bank, for which he received another sentence which expired in 1944; in 1946 he was sentenced for incitement to violence and fermenting rebellion, as well as for having operated a secret printing press which put out subversive leaflets having no connection with trade union matters. As regards Emilio Salgado Moreira, the Government states that he detained persons, searched houses and " requisitioned " jewellery belonging to private persons during the period 1936 to 1939.
105. 158. In its 27th Report (paragraph 153) the Committee considered that a full reply had been given by the Government from which it would seem that the persons concerned were sentenced by the competent courts in accordance with judicial procedure. Accordingly, the Committee considered that insufficient evidence had been put forward to show that the individuals concerned had not enjoyed the guarantees afforded by due process of law, or that they had been sentenced because of their trade union activities.
106. 159. The new information supplied by the complainants with regard to Salgado Moreira in their letter dated 17 December 1957, although much more detailed than that supplied by the Government, is not sufficient to invalidate the conclusions reached by the Committee on the previous occasion. In fact, the text of the verdict makes it clear that both Salgado and Villegas were sentenced for primarily political activities.
107. 160. In consequence, the Committee considers that in this instance the complainants have not furnished sufficient evidence to show that the individuals concerned were sentenced because of their trade union functions or activities and that, accordingly, there is no ground for making a more detailed examination of the allegations.
108. 161. With regard to Felix Carrasquer, the Spanish Government has not yet submitted its observations and the Committee therefore has asked the Director-General to obtain information from the Government on this aspect of the case before it makes its recommendations to the Governing Body.
109. Allegations relating to Measures Taken against Strikers and to Arrests of Trade Unionists
110. 162. In its communication dated 12 December 1957 the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile refers to the measures alleged to have been taken against workers at the Sestao shipyards and the miners at the Maria Luisa mine as a result of strikes.
111. 163. In a letter dated 15 May 1958 the World Federation of Trade Unions states that 44 Spanish citizens were arrested on 28 January of this year under the pretext that they had attended the World Youth Festival. They included a number of trade union leaders who are stated to have taken no part whatever in the Festival.
112. 164. These allegations have been duly forwarded to the Government, but no observations have yet been received; the Committee therefore has asked the Director-General to request the Government to furnish its observations thereon before it makes its recommendations to the Governing Body.
113. Allegations relating to the Imposition of Penal Sanctions in Respect of Attempts to Organise Trade Union Associations
114. 165. In its communication dated 6 May 1958 the General Union of Spanish Workers in Exile furnished further information, stating that in 1945 18 workers were detained in Bilbao on charges of attempted unlawful association. According to the statements of the Prosecutor, the accused received money from Mexico and their activities were directed towards the re-establishment of the General Union of Workers, this constituting the offence of unlawful association punishable under section 174 (1) of the Penal Code. The complaining organisation does not give the names of those proceeded against, but the Government, in its reply dated 17 October 1958, although not referring specifically to these allegations, states that at no time has it denied that the Spanish Penal Code defines and punishes as a crime attempts to reconstitute organisations which have been declared unlawful. Therefore, concludes the Government, those who take part in activities of this nature render themselves liable to the penalties prescribed by the Code.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 166. In its consideration of this case at its 18th Session (Geneva, 1957), the Committee examined in detail the principal complaint to which the additional information now submitted by the complainant relates. The Committee then reached the conclusions which are contained in paragraphs 144 and 187 (b) of its 27th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 137th Session (Geneva, November 1957), stating that " this situation is not compatible with the generally accepted principle that workers and employers should have the right to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation ". As the additional information now before it simply relates to further instances of the application of penal legislation which it has already examined in substance, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to reaffirm its previous conclusions.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 167. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to decide, with respect to the legislation relating to collective agreements:
   • (i) to note that as the result of the promulgation of the Collective Agreements Act, previous administrative authorisation for the initiation of negotiations and the conclusion of collective agreements is not necessary ;
   • (ii) to note that it is necessary to submit the agreements, once they have been concluded, to the competent authorities for their approval, and that agreements do not enter into force if they are disapproved;
   • (iii) to draw attention to the incompatibility of such a requirement in normal circumstances with the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organisations and workers' organisations with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements ;
   • (iv) to request the Spanish Government to be so good as to inform the Governing Body of the proportion of cases and the circumstances in which agreements are not approved as originally submitted, and, in general terms, of the action taken in such cases;
   • (b) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to the effect on freedom of association of the prohibition of the right to strike:
   • (i) to take note of the Government's statement to the effect that workers cannot be punished under article 222 of the Criminal Code merely on account of leaving their work;
   • (ii) to ask the Spanish Government, having regard to the fact that the relationship between " stoppages of work " and " strikes " does not appear to be entirely clear and to the fact that the penal clauses relating to strikes appear to be so broad in their terms as to be susceptible of application in a manner incompatible with freedom of association, to inform the Governing Body whether the necessary steps have been taken to ensure that this interpretation of the law is fully appreciated by the authorities responsible for initiating legal proceedings ;
   • (iii) to ask the Government whether it is studying the possibility of amending the provisions of the Criminal Code, the Labour Charter and the State Security Act relating to the prohibition of strikes referred to in paragraph 127 above in the light of the policy indicated by the Government;
   • (c) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to the detention of leaders and members of certain dissolved trade union organisations:
   • (i) to take note of the fact that it has on two previous occasions decided to request information on this matter from the Spanish Government, which has merely stated in reply that "no member or leader of the said organisations is in prison or detention at the present time either because of his membership of or leadership in the same or because of any other kind of trade union activity";
   • (ii) to draw the attention of the Government, in these circumstances, to the importance that it has always attached to the principle of a prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases in which trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government considers have no relation to their trade union functions;
   • (d) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to the imposition of penal sanctions in respect of attempts to organise trade union associations, to reaffirm the conclusion contained in paragraphs 144 and 187 (b) of the Committee's 27th Report that the situation is not compatible with the generally accepted principle that workers and employers should have the right to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation ;
   • (e) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to certain "social detainees", that the complainants have not in this instance supplied sufficient evidence to show that the individuals mentioned in the complaint were sentenced by reason of their trade union functions or activities, and that it is therefore unnecessary to examine these allegations further;
   • (f) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to the strikes of March 1958:
   • (i) to request the Spanish Government, for the reasons contained in paragraph 146 above, and in view of the discrepancy between the detailed information supplied by the complainants concerning the alleged economic causes of the strikes and the Government's assertion that the strikes constituted a subversive plot, to supply more detailed information regarding this aspect of the case;
   • (ii) to decide, with respect to the allegations relating to ill-treatment of and other measures against the workers following the strikes referred to above, and bearing in mind the legal proceedings now stated by the Government to be pending, to emphasise once again the importance it has always attached to the right of trade unionists, like all other persons, to enjoy the guarantees afforded by due process of law, in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to request the Government to supply more detailed information on these aspects of the ease;
   • (g) to take note of the present interim report on the aspects of the case which are still outstanding, it being understood that the Committee will report further thereon, when the observations requested from the Government have been received.