Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 208, Junio 1981

1. 154. The Committee has examined this case at its February 1981 Session to which it has presented its interim report.
2. 155. Ecuador 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. Previous examination of the case by the Committee

1. 156. The allegations referred to the eviction of one of the wings of the Ecuadorian Central of Class Organisation (CEDOC), and the National Federation of Peasant Organisations (FENOC), by the National Police, from the building in which their trade union premises were located. The complainants have indicated that, when on the day following the eviction, when they recovered the premises, they found that doors and walls had been damaged, and that the furniture, documents and other property of FENOC and CEDOC had been destroyed or had disappeared.
2. 157. The Government replied that the eviction was the result of legal action by the owner of the building for failure to pay the rent, and that the police were present in order to protect the official who was to carry out the eviction.
3. 158. The Committee recommended to the Governing Body to ask the Government to send it the texts of the eviction order of the court, as well as additional information regarding the disappearance of trade union documents and the material state of the trade union premises following eviction.

B. Reply of the Government

1. 159. In its communication of 20 April 1980, the Government sent a copy of the court's eviction order issued by the Judge Quinto de Inquilinato de Pichincha, which was transmitted to the Commander General of the National Police, ordering an official to carry out the eviction, together with the police forces who accompanied him whey the furniture and the household goods of the building were being removed. The building housed the trade union premises of one of the wings of CEDOC and FENOC.

C. Conclusions of the Committee

1. 160. As regards the eviction of the trade union premises of one of the wings of CEDOC and FENOC, the Committee notes the Government's statement which indicates that the eviction was carried out as a result of legal action by the owner of the building for failure to pay the rent, and as a result of the court's order issued by the judge Quinto de Inquilinato. The Committee notes also that the police were present in order to protect the official who was carrying out the eviction. On the other hand, the Committee also notes that in its communication of 1 December 1980, FENOC indicated that the building which served as the trade union's premises was recovered on the day following the eviction and that, since the last examination of the case, FENOC has sent no new information which would indicate any change in the situation. In these circumstances, and given that the eviction does not seem to be related to trade union activities, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
2. 161. As regards the allegation relating to disappearance or destruction of documents and other trade union property, and to the material state of the trade union's premises following eviction, the Committee remarks that the Government has not sent the requested specific information. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the International Labour Conference in its Resolution concerning Trade Union Rights and Their Relation to Civil Liberties (adopted in 1970, at the 54th meeting of the Conference), declared that the right to protection of trade union goods constitutes one of the essential civil liberties for the normal exercise of trade union rights. Consequently, the Committee hopes that the Government will do the necessary in order that the organisations who had suffered wrong-doing as a result of the eviction will be able to recover their documents and belongings and, if pertinent, they can obtain compensation for the damages which could have been caused to their property.