Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 246, Noviembre 1986

Caso núm. 1378 (Bolivia (Estado Plurinacional de)) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 02-SEP-86 - Cerrado

1. 128. In a telegram of 2 September 1986, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented a complaint against the Government of Bolivia alleging violation of ILO's Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) sent communications dated 1 and 5 September 1986, respectively, alleging violations of freedom of association in Bolivia. Additional information was received from the ICFTU in a subsequent communication of 22 September 1986. The Government responded to the allegations in letters dated 18 September and 7 October 1986.
2. 129. Bolivia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.47) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 130. In its telegram of 2 September 1986, the ICFTU reports having been informed by the "Bolivian Workers' Confederation" (COB) that on 28 August the Bolivian Government adopted serious measures against Bolivian workers in the form of a 90-day state of emergency which effectively suppressed trade unions' rights and freedoms. These measures were taken prior to a march of mineworkers on the nation's capital, La Paz, to protest against government plans to close several mining centres and to privatise others. The COB called for a general strike against these measures; the Government prohibited the strike and arrested 162 persons, trade unions leaders for the most part, and deported them to other parts of the country (Puerto Rico, San Joaquín and Magdalena).
2. 131. In its letter of 1 September 1986, the WFTU describes the social consequences of the policy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which recently sent a delegation to Bolivia to review the Government's economic policy. The IMF had insisted on the strict application of severe austerity measures before granting a 75 million US dollar loan to cover the nation's balance-of-payments deficit. Consequently, the Bolivian Government took steps to close down unprofitable enterprises, including two tin mines in Oruro, and to suspend the day-to-day operations of five other mines in the Potosé region; these steps resulted in the dismissal of approximately 20,000 workers. At the same time, the Government decided to privatise the mining industry. Faced with the prospect of losing their jobs, more than 5,000 miners of the Oruro and Potosé regions went on strike, demanding that the State continue operating the mines and protesting against the Government's austerity measures. It was against this background that the Government declared the state of emergency and arrested more than 200 organisers of the miners' strike which, according to the WFTU, was widely supported by popular and trade union organisations. The WFTU adds that about 100 persons were deported to inhospitable regions, which can only be interpreted as restricting freedom of movement and thereby denying the free exercise of trade union rights. The WFTU adds that those arrested include Mr. José Maria Palacios, Mr. Aldo Flores and Mr. Felipe Tapia, all trade union leaders of the COB, as well as Mr. Andres Soliz Rada, Executive Secretary of the Bolivian Union of Journalists (FTPB). According to the WFTU, the Government declared the state of emergency under the pretext that the miners' strike had been devised by an extreme left-wing revolutionary movement to overthrow the current Government of Mr. Victor Paz Estenssoro; it abolished the right to strike and the right to organise, and suspended the inviolability of the home.
3. 132. In its communication of 5 September 1986, the WCL stresses that the Bolivian Government declared the state of emergency in response to the COB strike and peaceful demonstration in defence of workers' legitimate interests.
4. 133. With its communication of 22 September, the ICFTU enclosed a legal opinion prepared in January 1986 by the COB on the Bolivian Government's infringements of the law and the Constitution, specifically through Decrees Nos. 21060 and 21137. The ICFTU reports that 1,500 miners are currently engaged in a hunger strike to protest against the closing of several mines and the dismissal of hundreds of workers. The complainant organisation adds that the state of emergency has considerably restricted trade union rights and freedoms.

B. The Government's reply

1. 134. On 18 September 1986, Bolivia's permanent mission in Geneva forwarded a reply prepared by the Minister in charge of negotiations, together with an agreement dated 13 September between the Government and the Trade Union Federation of Mineworkers of Bolivia (FSTMB). This communication reports that the state of emergency was decreed by the Bolivian Government on 27 August 1986, in accordance with special constitutional powers in response to the social unrest that was threatening Bolivia's representative and pluralistic democratic system; on 13 September 1986, the Government released all 162 trade union leaders who had been detained as a preventive measure under the special provisions of Bolivia's Constitution. Negotiations between the Government and the Trade Union Federation of Mineworkers of Bolivia, with the mediation of the highest authorities of the Catholic church, led to a framework agreement on modalities for the decentralisation of the Bolivian Mining Corporation (COMIBOL), the largest autonomous mining enterprise in Bolivia.
2. 135. In a second communication dated 7 October 1986, the Minister in charge of negotiations furnished additional information. He indicated that Presidential Decree No. 21377 of 25 August 1986 was adopted to establish decentralisation machinery with the participation of miners, in order to reduce the deficits suffered by the State's mines. It was imperative that Bolivia's mining industry be protected against a structural crisis which had been aggravated by the instability of the international tin market, especially as tin is the country's most important mining export. The measures taken in this connection provoked a reaction on the part of the Trade Union Federation of Mineworkers of Bolivia, which organised a mineworkers' march on La Paz in violation of national law and of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98; right from the start, according to the Government, the demonstration went beyond the objectives of a legitimate trade union protest march and became a deliberate attempt to provoke a social crisis that would destabilise Bolivia's Government and put an end to the democratic process that the Bolivian people have maintained at such great sacrifice since 1982. The trade union protest march developed into a serious and unconstitutional threat to law and order and led the Bolivian Government to declare a state of emergency by means of Presidential Decree No. 21378 of 27 August 1986, in accordance with the Constitution. Confronted with this crisis, the Government undertook negotiations with the FSTMB with the mediation of the Bolivian Bishops' Conference, as a result of which the parties reached an agreement on the planned decentralisation of COMIBOL, the State's mining enterprise.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 136. The Committee notes that this case involves the Bolivian Government's declaration, on 27 August 1986, of a state of emergency and its adoption of exceptional measures that curtailed trade union rights. The Committee notes the Government's claim that the state of emergency was declared in accordance with constitutional provisions with a view to quelling social unrest. The Committee notes that Chapter IV of Title Two of Bolivia's Constitution, concerning the preservation of public order, empowers the President, with the approval of the Council of Ministers, to declare a state of emergency in cases of internal disorder or international war, for a period of up to 90 days (Article 111). The state of emergency does not ipso facto suspend the rights and guarantees granted by the Constitition, but it does permit the arrest and summons of persons charged with conspiring against public order (Article 112, paragraph 3), and their confinement to other regions in order to protect public order (Article 112, paragraph 4).
2. 137. These measures followed a strike and demonstration organised by workers to protect their jobs against what they claimed was the Bolivian Government's decision to close down a number of tin mines, in compliance with the IMF's request; the complainants' claim that the strike and demonstration were peaceful is not contested by the Government. The Committee deplores the fact that these peaceful events led to the arrest and banishment of trade union leaders, since workers must be allowed to exercise their trade union activities freely. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, all persons arrested or banished have been released unconditionally.
3. 138. While noting that the exceptional measures taken by the Bolivian Government to overcome a difficult situation were taken in conformity with Bolivia's Constitution, the Committee points out that the peaceful exercise (strike and demonstration) of trade union rights by workers should not lead to arrests and deportations. Nevertheless, the Committee recognises that in this particular case it does not have sufficient information to ascertain whether the real intention of the workers participating in the protest march on La Paz was, as the Government claims, to destabilise Bolivia's democratic system and the Government of President Estenssoro or merely to express the legitimate claims of workers determined to defend their jobs. The Committee recalls that it has always considered that the detention of trade union leaders for activities related to the exercise of their trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association. However, the Committee notes that, shortly after the above-mentioned events, government authorities and the Trade Union Federation of Mineworkers of Bolivia agreed to work together to resolve the problems in this sector (mine closures, management decisions affecting workers, reinstatement of dismissed workers, the turning of mines into co-operatives, restructuring of jobs). According to this agreement, persons that had been detained or placed under house arrest were released and the trade union federation called off the general strike and the hunger strikes. The Committee is of the opinion that both parties are showing a willingness to negotiate and that social tensions are diminishing.
4. 139. Although it is not within the Committee's competence to comment on economic measures which a Government may take in difficult times or on the recommendation of the International Monetary Fund, the Committee nevertheless notes that decisions involving the dismissal of large numbers of workers should be discussed extensively with the trade union organisations concerned with a view to planning the occupational future of these workers in the light of the country's opportunities.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 140. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • a) As regards the state of emergency, the Committee deplores its existence, but notes that under Bolivia's Constitution it should not exceed 90 days.
   • b) The Committee deplores the fact that the exceptional measures provided for in the Constitution should have led to the arrest and banishment of many trade union leaders for the peaceful exercise of trade union activities (strike and protest march) contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee notes that these persons have now been released unconditionally.
   • c) The Committee notes that an agreement has been reached between the Government and the Trade Union Federation of Mineworkers of Bolivia, with a view to resolving the economic problems of the mining sector and decentralising COMIBOL through negotiation and consultation with the workers.
   • d) However, the Committee expresses the hope that negotiations will be pursued actively and, given the large numbers of jobs that are at stake in this case, that trade union organisations will be consulted on the ways and means of resolving the problems of the tin mines and invited to participate in economic decisions that directly affect workers and their jobs.