Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 381, Mars 2017

1. 366. The Committee last examined this case at its October 2015 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 376th Report, paras 352–364, approved by the Governing Body at its 325th Session (October 2015)].
2. 367. The Government sent new observations in communications dated 13 July and 24 November 2015, 14 January and 1 and 3 June 2016, and 3 January and 15 February 2017.
3. 368. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 369. In its previous examination of the case in October 2015, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 376th Report, para. 364]:
   • (a) While emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged facts, the Committee does not as yet have specific and detailed information concerning the different allegations or the proof that the present case – as indicated by the Government – has been settled by the courts. The Committee urges the Government to resend the communication dated 24 October 2014, referred to in the Government’s reply but not received by the Office.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to obtain, through the national employers’ organization concerned, the observations of the firms TEGRA and Pollo Cibao on the allegations and to communicate those observations without delay.
   • (c) Pending receipt of said information, the Committee urges the Government to ensure the full exercise of trade union rights in the above firms.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 370. In communications dated 13 July and 24 November 2015, 14 January and 1 and 3 June 2016, and 3 January and 15 February 2017, the Government provides the following additional information.
2. 371. With regard to recommendation (a) from its previous examination of the case (referring to a communication dated 24 October 2014 in which the Government indicated that the case had been settled by the courts), the Government clarifies that the evidence was sent in a communication dated 20 March 2015 and contained information from the National Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CNUS) that had already been sent to the Committee. In the communication, the CNUS indicates that Case No. 3068 relating to the Poultry and Livestock Corporation (Pollo Cibao) (hereinafter, the poultry enterprise) was settled by the national courts. In this regard, the Government points out that the court decisions referred to by the CNUS concern a request for authorization to dismiss a leader of the Pollo Cibao Poultry and Livestock Corporation Workers’ Union (SITRACAGPC), which was filed by the corporation and resulted in Decision No. 4/2011 of 27 November 2012 of the Labour Court of the Judicial District of Santo Domingo, which authorized the dismissal after establishing that the grounds for the dismissal were misconduct, not union activity. (The Government adds that this Decision was appealed, but that the appeal was declared inadmissible in Judgment No. 372 of 26 June 2013 of the Third Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.)
3. 372. As to the allegation that the firms brought legal action to have the trade union’s registration annulled, the Government provides an extract from Judgment No. 128/2015 of 7 October 2015, which denied the action to annul the union registration of the complainant organization due to the total absence of evidence.
4. 373. With regard to the allegation that union members have been pressured to give up their union membership under threat of dismissal, the Government indicates that there is no evidence of any pressure placed on the union members or officials by the firms in question. The Government says that this statement is based on its monitoring of labour-related complaints and information that is disseminated through the country’s various forms of media, as well as on the enforcement of labour standards by the labour inspectorate.
5. 374. With respect to the allegation that union leaders and members have been denied entry to ship unloading facilities, the Government emphasizes that, because it is an island, the Dominican Republic has many docks and dockworker unions and that these unions and their federations have concluded a large number of collective agreements with the port firms, regulating relations between them (for example, according to the Government, trade unions may carry out the checks of their members). Furthermore, the Government indicates that, in the light of the country’s geographical location, access to dock loading and unloading zones is a matter of national security and therefore surveillance measures are in place which, under no circumstances, can be considered bans or restrictions on access for workers.
6. 375. As to the alleged failure to pay wages to union members protected by union immunity, the Government reports that there is no evidence of this type of violation either.
7. 376. With regard to the allegation of a violent suppression of a peaceful march on 5 March 2014, the Government indicates that neither the Ministry of Labour nor state security agencies have any record of this event.
8. 377. On the other hand, in a general manner, the Government reports that the labour inspectorate detected “some practices that it considered contrary to freedom of association” in the poultry enterprise (without specifying whether they relate to the allegations contained in the complaint or providing any supporting documentation). The Government indicates that infringement reports were subsequently issued and sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and that the corresponding penalty would be imposed by the national courts.
9. 378. The Government adds that it met with representatives of the poultry enterprise, who said that they were respectful of the establishment of trade unions and of the relevant provisions set forth in the Labour Code, stressing that they are open to dialogue aimed at addressing any issues raised by any of the firm’s unions, within the limits of the law. As to collective bargaining with the poultry enterprise, the Government reports that the Ministry of Labour has organized several meetings in an effort to reconcile the parties, who have reached satisfactory agreements, although they have not concluded a collective agreement.
10. 379. Moreover, the Committee notes that in its communication dated 3 June 2016, the Government reported that it envisaged the establishment, by the end of June 2016, of a Dispute Settlement Board and therefore requested the Committee to allow the Board to hear the case before re-examining it. In response to a request from the Committee for information on the status of this case before the new national Board, in communications dated 3 January and 15 February 2017, the Government provides a report from the Director of Mediation of the Ministry of Labour, indicating that: (i) in the light of a request dated 22 August 2012 of the then applicant trade union, the Directorate of Mediation and Arbitration summoned the parties to a hearing on Thursday, 6 September 2012; (ii) on 6 September 2016, the parties appeared before the Directorate of Mediation and Arbitration, and the firm’s representative requested that the mediation be postponed, claiming that he was unaware of the documents that had been submitted by the union and requesting that the next meeting take place on 4 October 2016; (iii) the firm did not reappear and its absence was recorded; and (iv) since then, the union has not applied to either the General Directorate of Labour or the Directorate of Mediation and Arbitration.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 380. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of pressure to give up trade union membership, suppression of a peaceful trade union march, legal action brought by the firms to have the complainant union’s registration annulled, refusal of the firms to bargain collectively and other anti-union acts. The Committee notes that in early June 2016, the Government requested that a national Dispute Settlement Board (which was to be established at the end of that month) be allowed to hear the case before it was re-examined by the Committee. Having requested the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard, the Committee observes that the Government’s reply does not indicate whether the complaint has been heard by this Dispute Settlement Board. (The reply only provides information on the legal action to annul the union’s registration and on the latest mediation attempts within the Ministry, due to a request for mediation submitted by the complainant union in 2012.)
2. 381. The Committee notes that, based on the information provided by the Government, the court decisions to which the Government referred in its initial reply to the complaint in order to show that the case had been settled (with reference to a communication from a national union confederation which stated that the complaint had been settled by the courts) concern the dismissal of a leader of a different union from the complainant organization. The Committee notes that these judicial decisions do not relate to or prove the examination or any settlement of the allegations contained in this complaint.
3. 382. As to the allegation that the firms brought legal action to have the trade union’s registration annulled, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the action to annul the union registration of the complainant organization was denied in a judgment dated 7 October 2015.
4. 383. With regard to the allegation that union members have been pressured to give up their union membership under threat of dismissal, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has no proof of such pressure. The Committee observes the Government’s indication that this statement is based on its monitoring of labour-related complaints and information. In this respect, the Committee observes that, while the Government refers in a general manner to the functions of the labour inspectorate by stating that the allegations of pressure have not been substantiated, the Government does not indicate whether an inspection was conducted to investigate this allegation. The Committee further observes that the Government also fails to indicate whether other allegations of anti-union discrimination have been investigated (such as the allegation that union leaders and members have been denied entry to ship unloading facilities or the allegation that union members protected by union immunity have not been paid wages). Moreover, the Committee observes that the Government refers, in a general manner in relation to the poultry enterprise, to the conduct of inspections and the detection of “some practices that it considered contrary to freedom of association” and that infringement reports were subsequently issued and sent to the Public Prosecutor’s Office so that the corresponding penalty would be imposed by the national courts. Noting that the Government does not specify the nature of the detected infringements (or whether they relate to the allegations contained in the complaint), the Committee expects that the Government will ensure that the necessary investigations are carried out to ascertain whether pressure has been exerted on union members to renounce their membership under threat of losing their jobs and, if such anti-union actions have taken place, that corresponding penalties will be imposed and the appropriate compensation will be awarded.
5. 384. With respect to the allegations that the firms refuse to engage in collective bargaining, the Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to organize meetings with the poultry enterprise in an attempt to reconcile the parties (as a result of which, satisfactory agreements are said to have been reached, although a collective agreement has not been concluded). The Committee encourages the Government to continue to promote collective bargaining between the complainant union and the enterprises concerned.