Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 259, Noviembre 1988

1. 26. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented
   • allegations of violations of trade union rights against the Government of
   • Ecuador in a communication dated 3 June 1988. The Government sent its
   • observations on 13 and 18 July 1988.
2. 27. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 28. In its communication of 3 June 1988, the ICFTU alleges that its
   • affiliate the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Unions (CEOSL), together
   • with other union organisations united in the Front of Trade Union Unity
   • (Frente Unidad Sindical or FUT), called a general strike on Wednesday 1 June
2. 1988 to complain of the Government's failure to reply to petitions relating
   • particularly to recuperating the deteriorating purchasing power of Ecuadorian
   • workers and the lack of dialogue between the Government and the trade union
   • movement.
3. 29. According to the ICFTU, the Government decreed a state of emergency on
   • the day of the strike and violently put down the strikers; there were many
   • arrests. Mr. José Chavez, President of CEOSL and a member of the ICFTU's
   • executive committee, was detained with particular violence by the police and
   • later suffered harassment in prison. He was released at 8 a.m. on 2 June 1988.
   • B. The Government's reply
4. 30. In its communication of 13 July 1988, the Government states that in May
5. 1988 threats of a general transport strike started to be called by the
   • transport unions' leaders based on calls for increases in fares (the tariff in
   • force for urban transport was at the time equivalent to less than 3 Swiss
   • centimes). At the time the National Congress was discussing the increase of
   • the minimum legal wages for workers who benefited from annual increases to
   • protect wage earners from the effects of increases in the cost of living. The
   • Government was firmly against authorising any increase in transport rates
   • unless the awaited wage increase was agreed on.
6. 31. In these circumstances, states the Government, the FUT announced a
   • "national stoppage" for 1 June 1988 opposing the increases in transport
   • tariffs (which had already been frozen by the Government) and demanding a
   • general increase in wages. According to the Government, the stoppage was
   • pointless since the Congress was discussing this very issue and was shortly to
   • adopt a resolution on it. The transport workers threatened to disrupt the
   • country and made vile statements showing a lack of respect for the legitimate
   • authorities. It supplies press clippings in support of this.
7. 32. According to the Government, the FUT rejected all dialogue. Its various
   • strike calls of the past years have been contrary to law and order and have
   • been linked to offences of sedition, rebellion and resistance to the lawfully
   • elected authority; on more than one occasion they have involved acts of
   • vandalism and violence. Since 1979 when a constitutional regime was restored
   • to power in Ecuador after a prolonged period of dictatorship, there have been
8. 12 such mob attacks. They can thus be described as acts deliberately aimed at
   • destabilising the lawful regime. The Government states that since the work
   • stoppage of 13 May 1980 these uprisings called by the FUT have followed a
   • regular rhythm.
9. 33. The Government accordingly does not see these mass attacks as "strikes"
   • which are fully protected by the Constitution and laws. It refers to comments
   • it made in an earlier case concerning a nation-wide strike called in March
10. 1987 by the CEOSL in protest against the excessive increase in fuel prices and
    • transport costs. (See 254th Report, Case No. 1400, paras. 189 to 199, approved
    • by the Governing Body in February-March 1988.) These comments explain that in
    • Ecuadorian labour law a strike means "a collective suspension of work by
    • employees acting in combination" and that a strike is authorised "if a dispute
    • arises between an employer and his employees" and this is submitted to the
    • conciliation and arbitration tribunal. It may only be declared in the
    • following cases: "(1) if the employer, after being notified of the employees'
    • demands, fails to reply within the statutory time or gives a negative reply;
11. (2) if the employer, after being notified, dismisses or gives notice of
    • dismissal to one or more employees, or gives notice of the termination of an
    • agreement ...", except "in the case of the dismissal of an employee who has
    • committed an act of violence against the property of the undertaking or
    • factory or against the person of the employer or his agent; (3) if no
    • conciliation and arbitration tribunal is appointed within the time specified
    • in section 466 or if, having been appointed, the tribunal for any reason does
    • not meet within three days of its appointment, on condition in either case
    • that the failure is not the fault of the members designated by the employees;
12. (4) if conciliation proves impossible or no award is issued within the time
    • allowed by section 473". The Government stresses that the protection of strike
    • action is so wide in Ecuador that strikers are authorised to remain in the
    • concerned workplaces (unique in world labour legislation) under police
    • protection against the entry of agitators and strike breakers; strikers are
    • entitled to receive remuneration and solidarity strikes are authorised.
13. 34. The Government reiterates the detailed reply it gave in Case No. 1400
    • stressing that the March 1987 uprising involved obstruction of the free
    • movement of vehicles and pedestrians; destruction of public property such as
    • garden benches and traffic signs; burning of tyres; stoning of police and
    • citizens; burning of private homes; storming of the Hotel Colón Internacional
    • and other establishments in Quito with incendiary bombs; burning and hanging
    • of hundreds of dogs as macabre symbolism. The Government states that, in view
    • of this earlier violence and faced with the complaints of the general public
    • tired of these repeated events, it was obliged to take cautious measures to
    • preserve the public peace. It declared a state of emergency, mobilised the
    • military in the streets and suspended the constitutional guarantees, all done
    • in accordance with the law in an effort to avoid anarchy, which is an
    • essential aspect of the role of government.
14. 35. Given the state of emergency, states the Government, the sedition of 1
    • June 1988 indeed resulted in less violence than the earlier uprisings. The
    • armed forces acted with prudence and did not get involved in clashes. Since
    • they were unaware of the FUT's call, the genuine workers continued working in
    • most undertakings. In general, there was no vandalism apart from isolated
    • cases. One of the union leaders of the transport workers suffered injuries
    • when explosives blew up during the FUT sedition. Moreover, despite the
    • presence of the army in the streets, vehicles and passers-by were attacked and
    • public property destroyed. The Government cites the editorial of the newspaper
    • "El Comercio" the day after the event describing the FUT strike as inopportune
    • and unnecessary. According to the Government, national public opinion calls
    • for discipline and efficiency so that Ecuador can be saved, rather than
      • so-called "freedom of association" which has no self-control and which is
    • destroying the nation's society.
15. 36. The Government supplies a further press clipping from "El Comercio"
    • showing that the agitation during the "tariffs war" was not limited to the 1
    • June 1988 riotous mobbing, but continued throughout that month into July.
    • Groups of agitators attacked public transport vehicles, with the violence
    • escalating to such an extent that one driver was forced to repel attacks with
    • his firearm.
16. 37. According to the Government, in connection with the events of 1 June
17. 1988, Mr. José Chavez was arrested for disorderly behaviour in a public place
    • with a group of 40 rioters; he insulted and assaulted the superintendent in
    • charge of the police patrol who warned the persons present of the risk of
    • prison. They were judged on the same day by the General Police Commander and
    • sentenced to two days' detention under section 606(9) of the Penal Code. The
    • Government supplies a copy of the Commander's decision. Immediately on being
    • informed of these detentions and once the events were over, the authorities
    • ordered the release of all persons detained during the disorders so that no
    • one completed the full sentence which their offences merited. Copies of the
    • release orders, dated 2 June 1988, are supplied. Mr. Chavez was thus free as
18. of 2 June and there are therefore no persons imprisoned in Ecuador due to the
    • events of 1 June 1988.
19. 38. According to the Government, the ICFTU's complaint is baseless and
    • should be rejected.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 39. The Committee notes that the complainant's allegations concern the
   • arrest of the President of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Free Trade Union
   • Organisations (CEOSL), Mr. José Chavez, after calling a general strike on 1
   • June 1988 to protest against the Government's failure to reply to petitions
   • relating to occupational demands, in particular the deteriorating purchasing
   • power of Ecuadorian workers.
2. 40. The Committee notes the Government's explanations concerning the special
   • circumstances which gave rise to what is described as the "tariffs war" and
   • that the Government raises the political aspect of the repeated work stoppages
   • called by the trade union confederations united in the Front of Trade Union
   • Unity, as well as the unlawful character of the strike.
3. 41. It observes that the allegations and replies are similar to the facts
   • put forward in Case No. 1400 against the Government of Ecuador, examined most
   • recently in February-March 1988. It accordingly refers the Government to its
   • earlier conclusions, and in particular regrets that in the course of the
   • strike, despite the state of emergency and police and army presence in the
   • streets, some violent and disorderly incidents occurred.
4. 42. As regards the arrest of Mr. Chavez, as a result of disorderly behaviour
   • during the events of 1 June 1988, the Committee notes that he was charged and
   • sentenced under section 606(9) of the Penal Code for promoting public meetings
   • without the appropriate police authorisation, and was released after 24 hours
   • along with 40 other individuals.