Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 207, Mars 1981

Cas no 991 (Costa Rica) - Date de la plainte: 21-AOÛT -80 - Clos

1. 253. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Trade Unions International of Agricultural, Forestry and Plantation Workers (UISTABP) dated 21 August 1980. The Government replied by a communication of 16 October 1980.
2. 254. Costa Rica 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. Allegations of the complainant

1. 255. In its communication of 21 August 1980 the UISTABP alleges repression of the banana workers, the militarisation of their work, government intervention in the Union of Workers of El Golfillo (UTG) and the imprisonment of dozens of workers, including Edwin Oviedo, General Secretary of UTG.

B. Reply of the Government

1. 256. In its communication of 16 October 1980 the Government states that at no time has it practised a policy of repression against the banana workers, that the public authorities do not even possess statutory powers to militarise any form of labour and that the Government has not intervened in UTG. As regards the arrest of trade union leaders, continues the Government, the authorities have not arrested citizens for the mere fact of holding trade union office.
2. 257. The Government states that, following talks between the representatives of UTG and the Costa Rica Banana Company on matters related to the collective agreement in force, which failed to result in an agreement on wages and the dismissal of workers, a strike was called - which was later to be declared illegal by the courts - on 10 July 1980, despite the repeated efforts at conciliation by the ministry of Labour and Social Security, which remained unsuccessful even after the strike had begun. In these circumstances, continues the Government, and pursuant to the Labour Code, the Executive issued a decree on 13 August 1980 to place the plantations under temporary control as they were regarded as a public service under private ownership, and to regulate the conduct of labour-management relations. The Government indicates that the strike was ended by the trade union leaders on 26 August, when the Ministry of Labour and Social Security replied favourably to the proposals made by trade union organisations respecting the Decree of 13 August 1980. These proposals, made by Edwin Oviedo, among others, on 24 August 1980, referred to the continuity of contracts of employment, the undertaking that there would be no reprisals against those who had participated in the strike, the action to be taken as regards the dismissals made before the strike began, etc.
3. 258. The Government reports that there has been full labour and social peace in the banana zone of the South Pacific area of the country since the strike ended.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 259. The Committee notes that the labour dispute in the Banana Company has ended and that the present labour and social situation in the zone is peaceful.
2. 260. The Committee nevertheless wishes to point out that the Government has not given a concrete reply to the allegation of the complainant regarding the arrest of trade union leaders. In this connection the Committee would like to obtain detailed information on any arrests of trade union leaders arising out of the labour dispute and on the present situation of any persons that may have been arrested, in particular on the alleged arrest of Edwin Oviedo, General Secretary of the UTG, even though the Committee has noted that the signature of Mr. Oviedo appears on the document of 24 August 1980 in which the trade union organisations made proposals to the Ministry regarding the Decree of 13 August 1980.
3. 261. The Committee also observes that the Government has not indicated the grounds on which the strike of 10 July 1980 was declared illegal. For its part, the Committee notes that all strikes in public services are unlawful under section 368 of the Labour Code, and that section 369(b) includes in this category of, services work performed by employees engaged in the care or harvesting of agricultural products. In this respect the Committee would like to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that prohibitions on the right to strike are admissible only to the extent which they apply to civil servants or workers in essential services in the strict sense, i.e., services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The Committee wishes to recall that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, in its General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, mentions agriculture as not forming part of essential services in the strict sense of the term.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 262. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to adopt the present interim report and in particular the following conclusions;
   • The Committee must draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the prohibition of strikes is admissible only to the extent which it applies to the civil service or to essential services in the strict sense.
   • The Committee requests precise information from the Government on the reasons for the arrests mentioned by the complainants and on the present situation of the arrested trade unionists.