Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 272, Junio 1990

1. 137. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 5 December 1989. The Government replied in communications dated 22 and 26 February 1990 (when the Government refers to the statements it made in a communication dated 27 December 1989, in reply to the complaints submitted to the Director-General of the ILO by a number of international trade union confederations, in which they requested that the ILO contact the Government of Bolivia in connection with the same issues that the ICFTU raises in this case).
2. 138. Bolivia has ratified both 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. 139. In its communication of 5 December 1989, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges that on 23 October 1989, the teachers' trade union officials declared a hunger strike - the number of strikers totalled 2,500 throughout Bolivia - in support of the wage dispute started by 84,000 urban teachers, who were nevertheless continuing with their classes as normal. This strike had the backing of the Bolivian Central of Workers (COB). Twenty-one days into the strike, a number of teachers were in a pre-coma state.
2. 140. The ICFTU points out that the conflict had arisen when the teachers asked for a bonus to compensate for cost-of-living increases during the year, consisting of 300 bolivanos (approximately 103 US dollars). They had been paid this bonus in 1987 and 1988, as a result of an agreement with the previous Government. The present Government refused to acknowledge this acquired right and, therefore, to pay the bonus, on the grounds that there were no funds in the State Treasury.
3. 141. The ICFTU adds that as the movement was growing and spreading to other sectors, the Government responded by declaring a state of emergency and proceeded to arrest thousands of workers (all those workers on hunger strike) and banished about 100 trade unionists to internal exile in districts in the forest area of the country. Daniel Santalla, Secretary-General of the COB, was amongst those arrested, together with eight officials from the National Executive Committee. Wilma Plata, head official of Public Prosecutor's Office in the Department of La Paz, was also arrested and brutally beaten up at the moment of her arrest. It is particularly striking that the Government decreed a state of emergency for three months, on the grounds of an alleged public danger - such was the description of the trade union's hunger strike - and then proceeded to repress and arrest workers and send them to desolate areas, thus violating their human and trade union rights.

B. The Government's reply

1. 142. The Government states that on 8 August 1989, only two days after the new Government had taken office, trade union officials representing the teaching profession asked for a wage increase exceeding 300 per cent. This increase in the total pay of the teaching and administrative staff would have meant that the budget for wages of the Ministry of Education and Culture accounted for 45 per cent of the national budget. It should not be forgotten that the previous Government (which left office on 6 August 1989) had had more than half a year to take the necessary legal steps and make a budget allocation for a wage bonus or supplement in 1990, but they had done nothing. Neither is there any evidence of an agreement between the Ministry of Education and the teachers' confederations on the presumed obligation to make a special payment to ensure that the normal commitment to end the school year was fulfilled.
2. 143. Nevertheless, the Government, always open to dialogue, received the trade union requests but pointed out that the wage claims had to be considered in the light of the economic and financial possibilities within the 1990 financial year. The trade union officials in this branch of activity dismissed outright the Government's proposals and, as a means of pressure, called a hunger strike (the strikers received adequate medical attention in due time). Justifying the action on the basis of an erroneous concept of trade union solidarity, the unions proposed that this hunger strike should spread to other trade union sectors, thereby seriously threatening to disrupt public law and order. In spite of the intransigence of the teachers' trade union officials, the Government, in an attempt to maintain social peace, reopened talks with the confederations of urban and rural teachers of Bolivia and a number of delegates from the Bolivian Central of Workers. It succeeded in reaching a written agreement, which provided for the setting up of a committee, made up of representatives of the executive power and the teaching profession - entrusted with putting forward a favourable solution to the teachers' request in the 1990 financial year, but ensuring it was in line with the irrefutable need to maintain economic and financial stability within the country. At the same time, the trade union officials undertook to end the hunger strike, as a prerequisite for beginning the work of this committee, acting with respect for trade union immunity and the current Bolivian Code of Education.
3. 144. The Government adds that it acted with the certitude that this agreement would end the dispute and pave the way for a peaceful and adequate solution to the issue. However, unexpectedly, the agreement was rejected, seemingly because of the existence of interested parties within the teachers' movement, most of whom belong to the Federation of Urban Teachers of La Paz. There were calls to extend and step up the dispute, leading to violent action and public unrest, thus turning the strike movement into a political attempt to destabilise the democratic system and undermine the constitutionally established authority. This resulted in systematic and recurrent acts of street violence which seriously disturbed public law and order and created a state of internal unrest. Given the decision of the trade union leadership of Bolivian teachers and the situation, the Government felt bound to decree a state of emergency on 14 November 1989, in accordance with the Constitution. The Government points out that 858 citizens were arrested after the state of emergency had been adopted. After making a detailed assessment of the records of these persons, it was decided to exile 153 of them to various districts throughout the Republic. The number of persons in exile was gradually reduced as, after a personal assessment had been made of each case, the Government ordered their release. In the first ten days of December 1989, there were no more citizens in exile within the country or persons detained whilst awaiting criminal proceedings in connection with these events. To be more precise, the trade union officials Baldivieso, Osorio and Garabito are completely free and are not facing any charges whatsoever before the normal courts.
4. 145. The Government specifies that the state of emergency was decreed on the very brink of a serious institutional crisis, because there was danger that the social events would extend beyond the trade union executives - themselves with marked internal differences - and lead to a chaotic situation of conflict with the Constitution and democratic system in force. As a result of the general amnesty granted by the Government before Christmas 1989, all the problems that had arisen as a result of the dispute described above were resolved. There is not one single person in exile, either within or outside the country, on account of the events that occurred amongst the teachers and in other branches of activities.
5. 146. At present, the Ministry of Education is open to dialogue with the legal representatives of the teachers, as they have already been offered a readjustment of their salaries in 1990. However, there are many other problems besides the question of salaries: the shortcomings of the educational system itself, the high level of illiteracy, etc. The Ministry of Education wishes to convoke the teachers to discuss implementation of the educational reform and is relying upon their active particiption. The wage problems and others are inter-related.
6. 147. Finally, the Government points out that its determination to respect and promote freedom of association is clear in the provisions contained in the recent Supreme Decree No. 22407, which grants facilities to trade union officials and their organisations in the exercise of their duties.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 148. The Committee notes that in the present case, the complainant organisation alleged that the Government refused to grant teachers a wage supplement to compensate for the cost-of-living increases in 1989 and that the Government's reaction to the hunger strike declared on 23 October 1989 by trade unionists in the teaching profession in support of their claims (a movement that grew and spread to other sectors) consisted in declaring a state of emergency, arresting thousands of workers (including those who were on hunger strike) and banishing more than 100 of these workers to internal exile.
2. 149. As regards the Government's refusal to grant teachers a wage supplement to compensate for the cost-of-living increases in 1989, the Committee notes the Government's explanation that there was a lack of budgetary reserves until 1990, that it considered the wage claims excessive, and that there was no agreement or previous arrangement between the authorities and the trade union organisations concerning the payment of such a wage supplement. The Committee wishes to recall the principle in collective bargaining whereby: "the question as to whether one party adopts an amenable or uncompromising attitude towards the demands of the other party is a matter for negotiation between the parties within the law of the land" (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association, third edition, 1985, para. 589). The Committee notes that, according to the Government, a written agreement was reached with the trade union leadership (later rejected by the same leadership) which provided for the setting up of a joint committee entrusted with finding a solution to the problems, and that the Ministry of Education had offered a wage readjustment in 1990 and was proposing to convoke teachers' representatives to discuss issues concerned with the educational reform.
3. 150. As regards the alleged measures taken by the Government in response to the hunger strike declared by the teachers' union officials and the strike movement that spread to other sectors, the Committee notes that the Government acknowledges that it declared a state of emergency and arrested or banished to internal exile a large number of trade unionists and workers.
4. 151. The Committee notes that the reasons given by the Government for adopting these measures can be summarised as follows: (1) the trade union leadership rejected a written agreement which it had signed with the authorities and which put an end to the dispute; (2) there was a systematic outbreak of street violence and calls to extend and step up the dispute, leading to violent action and public unrest, thus turning the strike movement into a political attempt to undermine the constitutionally established authority.
5. 152. The complainant organisation did not provide any explanation to the Committee as to why the trade union leadership rejected the agreement that it had reached with the authorities. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that the Government did not merely resort to the usual emergency measures against acts of street violence and their perpetrators, but declared a state of emergency, arrested 858 workers and trade unionists and banished 153 of them to internal exile (according to the Government's own figures), thus taking unusually harsh steps, out of all proportion, that prevented any form of subsequent trade union action and the exercise of trade union rights in general.
6. 153. Consequently, the Committee deeply deplores the measures taken by the Government and concludes that they infringed the principles of freedom of association contained in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that, given the large number of workers and trade unionists concerned, everything would seem to point to the fact that these measures were not only taken against the perpetrators of acts of violence but also against those taking part in trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fact that the detention of trade union leaders for activities connected with the exercise of their trade union rights is contrary to the principles of freedom of association (see Digest, para. 87) and that arrests and dismissals of strikers on a large scale involve a serious risk of abuse (see Digest, para. 442). The Committee also points out that the imposition of sanctions, such as internal exile or banishment for trade union reasons, constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association and that it is unacceptable that sanctions of this nature should be imposed by administrative action (see Digest, para. 138).
7. 154. Finally, the Committee notes that during the first ten days of December 1989, nobody was either detained or in internal exile, the state of emergency had been lifted and, before Christmas 1989, the Government granted a general amnesty.