Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2013, publiée 103ème session CIT (2014)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Costa Rica (Ratification: 1960)

Autre commentaire sur C087

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to send its observations on the 2009 and 2011 communications by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), and particularly on: (i) the ITUC’s assertion that in the event of a strike, trade unions are required to give the names of the strikers; and (ii) the alleged breach of the Act prohibiting trade union activities by solidarista associations in certain banana and pineapple plantations. The Committee observes that the Government has not replied to the first of the above assertions and accordingly requests it to do so. The Committee notes the ITUC’s comments of 30 August 2013, as well as the Government’s observations thereon.

The Committee notes that the Government has ordered the labour inspectorate to carry out visits in the pineapple sector and that the Government reports that in the course of the visits there were no complaints of any violations of trade union rights; the chamber of employers stated that it respects labour rights. The Committee observes that the Government does not refer by name to the enterprises in the pineapple sector mentioned by the ITUC, or to the banana sector (other than to point out that cases concerning this sector have been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association). It requests the Government to ensure that the labour inspectorate carries out visits in this sector as well in order to satisfy itself that trade union rights are observed, including in plantations where there are solidarista associations The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

With regard to the 2011 comments by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN), the Committee notes the Government’s response that the case concerning the JAPDEVA Workers’ Union (SINTRAJAP) in the ports sector was examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association, which found no grounds for continuing its examination. The Government denies that there was any interference in the affairs of the abovementioned union. The Government adds that the constitutional reform regarding solidarista associations treats the latter as an instrument for workers’ economic and social growth and does not seek to substitute them for trade unions and that the People’s Development Bank (referred to by the CTRN) is in the process of revising the collective agreement.

The Committee notes that the Government has conducted consultations and gathered information on complaints by trade unions concerning the Ministry of Public Education and the Supreme Electoral Court; in the former institution, agreements have been reached with trade union organizations to guarantee the exercise of fundamental rights. The Government states that it will send further information. As regards the second of the above institutions, the administrative enquiry led to a decision to dismiss the case concerning a public servant accused of dereliction of duty; it was furthermore agreed that a meeting would be held to come to an agreement on trade union leave.

Lastly, the Committee notes that in its 2013 communication, the CTRN refers for the most part to problems already raised by the Committee and provides some examples and information by way of illustration.