Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 234, Juin 1984

1. 284. The complaint is contained in a communication from the General Workers' Federation dated 19 January 1983. The Government replied in a communication dated 3 February 1984.
2. 285. The Dominican Republic 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. 286. The complainant alleges that the National Union of Workers in the National Institute for Water Resources (SINATRAINDRHI) and the National Institute for Water Resources (INDRHI) signed a collective agreement on 8 January 1982, the clauses of which were not complied with months later by the new Director-General of the INDRHI appointed after the change of government. Faced with such a situation the trade union tried to find a solution by direct agreement and then through the mediation of the Secretary of State for Labour, which resulted in an agreement capable of putting an end to the dispute. However, the Director of the INDRHI withdrew his agents' authority and refused to sign the agreement, with the result that the trade union called a 72-hour work stoppage, without closure of the sluices, in the month of October 1982, which did not affect the flow of water in the irrigation channels.
2. 287. The complainant states that the Government reacted to this stoppage in the following manner: the INDRHI was taken over by military forces; the trade union's activities were banned and the Secretary of State for Labour obtained the cancellation of its registration; the trade union was falsely accused of sabotage and of having carried out a strike with closure of the sluices; the check-off of trade union dues was stopped; the accumulated dues, the property of the trade union, were withheld; the members of the National Executive Committee and the Executive Boards of the 23 branches of the trade union as well as more than 1,000 union members were dismissed and workers were required to resign in writing from the union as a condition for working in the INDRHI.
3. 288. The complainant alleges, moreover, that since May 1982 hundreds of workers in the Dominican Agrarian Institute (IAD) have been organised in the National Union of IAD workers (SIANTRIAD), which currently has 20 branches throughout the country. The complainant points out that the Secretary of State for Labour, in an official document dated 24 June 1982 (which the complainant encloses), confirmed the ruling that workers in the IAD do not have the right to join a trade union.

B. The Government's reply

1. 289. The Government states that basically the dispute between the National Union of Workers in the National Institute for Water Resources (SINATRAINDRHI) and the National Institute for Water Resources (INDRHI) had its origin in disagreements over the application of the collective agreement on working conditions existing between the parties.
2. 290. The Government adds that the SINATRAINDRHI committed a flagrant violation of the law (sections 370 and 371 of the Labour Code) in declaring an illegal strike in a public service of permanent utility such as provided by the INDRHI, whose principal function is to supply water to the whole country. Section 370 of the Code provides that no strike shall be permitted in public services of permanent utility and section 371 lists services for the supply of water as being one of these.
3. 291. The Government also states that as a consequence of the illegal strike declared by the SINATRAINDRHI acts of sabotage were detected in the water supply installations which led to orders being given for the intervention of the public forces in all the branches of the INDRHI with the view to safeguarding the installations and the supply of water. This intervention was of a transitory nature and has totally ceased.
4. 292. The Government points out that despite the serious situation indicated above, some of the most prominent trade union leaders have been reinstated in their jobs in the INDRHI as a result of talks held between the parties. The vast majority of the workers who had been dismissed by reason of the declaration of an illegal strike have also been reinstated.
5. 293. As regards the right of workers in the Dominican Agrarian Institute (IAD) to join a trade union, the Government declares that at no time has it refused to register the trade union actually functioning in the IAD and that the Secretary of State for Labour hopes that all the documents relating to the formation of the said trade union will be submitted so that he can proceed with the corresponding registration, as indicated to the trade union in an official communication dated 7 December 1983 (which the Government encloses).

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 294. As regards the measures taken by the authorities as a result of the 72-hour strike organised in October 1982 by the SINATRAINDRHI in the National Institute for Water Resources, tile Committee notes that, according to the Government, strikes are not permitted in public services of permanent utility such as the services for the supply of water provided by tile aforementioned institute, that the intervention of the public forces in the branches of tile Institute was due to the discovery of acts of sabotage in the water supply installations, and that some of tile trade union leaders and the majority of the workers dismissed have been reinstated.
2. 295. While recognising that services for tile supply of water constitute an essential service in the strict sense of tile term (that is to say, a service whose interruption could endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) in respect of which strike action may therefore be prohibited [see, for example, 233rd Report, Case No. 1225 (Brazil), para 668], the Committee wishes to point out that the measures taken by tile authorities to ensure the performance of essential services should not be out of proportion to the end pursued or lead to excesses and, in particular, acts of interference on the part of the authorities which would restrict the right of trade union organisations to organise their administration and activities in full freedom (Article 3 of Convention No. 87).
3. 296. In tile light of this, tile Committee points out that the measures cited by the complainant, on which tile Government has not sent observations, are not justified from tile point of tile view of the principle expounded; these measures include, in particular, the prohibition of tile trade union's activities, tile cessation of tile check-off of trade union dues, tile withholding of dues accumulated by the trade union and the requirement that workers renounce their trade union membership in order to work in tile INDRHI. In view of tile fact that the allegations date back to 1982, the Committee can only express regret at the measures adopted and hope that in the future similar measures will not be taken.
4. 297. The Committee also wishes to point out that the mass dismissal of strikers involves serious dangers of abuse and places freedom of association in grave jeopardy [see, for example, 149th Report, Case No. 793 (India), paragraph 138].
5. 298. As regards the allegation that the Secretary of State for Labour considered that workers in tile Dominican Agrarian Institute (IAD) do not have the right to join a trade union, the Committee observes that according to what can be inferred from tile communication of 7 December 1983 from the Secretary of State for Labour to the representatives of the trade union (in the process of formation) of tile IAD, the authorities have changed their attitude regarding the right of the aforementioned workers to join a trade union, and that tile Secretary of State for Labour is awaiting receipt of the documents necessary for the formation of tile trade union. The Committee expresses the hope that the said trade union will shortly be set up and requests the Government to keep it informed on this matter.