&htab;26.&htab;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.

&htab;27.&htab;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).

&htab;28.&htab;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 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.

&htab;29.&htab;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.

&htab;30.&htab;In its communication of 13 July 1988, the Government states that in May 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.

&htab;31.&htab;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.

&htab;32.&htab;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 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.

&htab;33.&htab;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 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; (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; (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.

&htab;34.&htab;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.

&htab;35.&htab;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.

&htab;36.&htab;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.

&htab;37.&htab;According to the Government, in connection with the events of 1 June 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 of 2 June and there are therefore no persons imprisoned in Ecuador due to the events of 1 June 1988.

&htab;38.&htab;According to the Government, the ICFTU's complaint is baseless and should be rejected.

&htab;39.&htab;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.

&htab;40.&htab;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.

&htab;41.&htab;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 accordinglyrefers 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.

&htab;42.&htab;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.

&htab;43.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:

&htab;The Committee notes that José Chavez, President of the CEOSL, was released on 2 June 1988 after 24 hours' detention for infringement of section 606(9) of the Ecuadorian Penal Code concerning public meetings without the appropriate police authorisation. It accordingly considers that the matter does not call for further examination.

&htab;44.&htab;At its meeting in February 1988 the Committee examined an aspect of this case concerning the exercise of the right to strike and the imposition of minimum services and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 254th Report, paragraphs 428 to 449, approved by the Governing Body at its 239th Session (February-March 1988)].

&htab;45.&htab;The remaining allegations are contained in communications from the Single National Trade Union of Workers in the Clothing Industry (SUA-VESTIMENTA) dated 25 March, 21 April, 3 August and 2 and 9 September 1987 and in a communication from the Inter-Union Workers' Assembly and the National Workers' Convention (PIT-CNT) dated 14 May 1987. The World Federation of Trade Unions, in a communication dated 9 September 1987, and the PIT-CNT supported SUA-VESTIMENTA'S complaint. The Government replied in communications dated 8 October 1987 and 5 June and 10 October 1988.

&htab;46.&htab;Uruguay 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).

&htab;47.&htab;The Single National Trade Union of Workers in the Clothing Industry (SUA-VESTIMENTA) makes a series of allegations concerning infringements of freedom of association by the Chamber of Employers in the Clothing Industry (CIV) during a long labour dispute which has beengrowing more acute since 1986. Although it recognises the democratic character of the Government and points out that civil and political freedoms are recognised in the country and that as a consequence the principles of freedom of association are respected, SUA-VESTIMENTA states that the competent authorities have not taken effective measuresto prevent, in the manner prescribed in Articles 3 and 5 of Convention No. 98, the very serious infringements of trade union rights which have occurred. Given the intransigence and anti-trade union attitude of employers in negotiations in the wage councils of June 1986 (which fix minimum wages) the Executive Power decreed a 17 per cent wage increase with the support of the employers and which was rejected by SUA-VESTIMENTA on the basis of the percentage of the increase and the failure to respect the legal provision contained in section 9 of Act No. 10449 which prescribes that wages should be fixed by categories of workers in such a way that they are remunerated in accordance with the degree of specialisation required for their job. In the same way the use of homeworkers and small-scale clothing workshops results in over-exploitation which is compounded by the practice of employers of placing their trade union staff on unemployment insurance or dismissing workers on the pretext that there is a shortage of work when jobs are in fact being carried out in the above-mentioned workshops. In an attempt to pressure the CIV into respecting the legislation, work stoppages were organised within workplaces extending throughout the working day. The CIV responded by:

- establishing blacklists which make it impossible for trade union leaders and militant members to obtain stable employment. This is the case of Ramón Cáceres, Secretary-General of SUA-VESTIMENTA, Harlem Olivera, Deputy Secretary-General, the union leader Hugo Bergalta (a victim of slander by the employers who accused him of discriminatory attitude based on race) and of 50 per cent of the trade union leadership (the complainant organisation includes in an annex a list of those persons appearing on the blacklists); - dismissing or placing on unemployment insurance during the July 1986 dispute or as a result of it more than half of the 60 members of the national directorate of SUA-VESTIMENTA. Hundreds of workers were suspended and 46 were dismissed for having participated actively in the trade union measures on the pretext of alleged acts of misconduct committed during the strikes (SUA-VESTIMENTA encloses the list of persons dismissed);

- assigning uniformed police to more than ten factories; when the public clerks recruited by the employers interviewed workers to see whether they were going to join the strike, those who answered affirmatively were prevented from entering;

- locking in more than six undertakings those workers who were peacefully occupying factories without any measures being taken by the public authorities;

- using fixed-term recruitment as a means of anti-trade union discrimination and preventing workers from joining the trade union;

- misusing the unemployment insurance scheme as a means of discharging unionised workers and subsequently recruiting other workers or giving out work to small and often clandestine workshops;

- carrying out a preliminary investigation of workers seeking employment in the clothing industry by means of agencies or undertakings which interviewed persons close to the applicants concerning their participation in strikes, their political tendencies, etc. This occurs in several undertakings in the sector and, in particular, in Milton S.A. and OROLON S.A.; - the establishment of collective agreements between undertakings and workers behind the backs of the trade union organisation (in the Milton S.A. undertaking a collective agreement was established which grants greater wage benefits to workers on the condition that they do not participate in the central wage negotiations carried out by the trade union). SUA-VESTIMENTA then illustrates these allegations by referring to anti-trade union acts which have occurred in the following undertakings: Milton, CIMPEX, EVERFIT, EL MAGO, RELOS, RODOY, ROMINA, SIDEX, CUBACAN, MOISES FELD, PAUL SHARK, FARGO, BERNALESA, RINSY, DYMAC, PRAKER, DAKAR and MANTEL.

&htab;48.&htab;In its communication of 14 May 1987, the Inter-Union Workers'Assembly and the National Workers' Convention (PIT-CNT) point out that the return to democracy in the country has led to a recognition of trade union organisations which play a proper role in the life of the country. They allege, however, that the provision contained in Article 3 of Convention No. 98 that "machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established ... for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise" has not been respected. In Uruguay it is possible to keep active trade unionists out of employment by dismissing them since all the employer has to do is to dismiss the worker (without giving reasons) and pay the corresponding compensation. This situation, which is known to and ignored by the Ministry of Labour, is giving rise to a growing number of blatant acts of anti-trade union persecution. Decree No. 93/68 dated 3 February 1968 establishes regulations to prohibit and impose sanctions on anti-trade union discrimination, but does so in a purely formal manner since it fixes very low fines (up to 25 or 50 times the daily wage) and the imposition of the fine is a matter for the discretion of the administrative authority. It is not adequate machinery in the sense used in Convention No. 98 but rather one which facilitates discrimination. The Chamber of Deputies has approved a bill on the subject which does not satisfy the aspirations of the trade union movement since it results in excessive interference in the internal life of the trade union organisations by imposing voting systems in the election of trade union officials. In addition to the clothing industry, trade union rights are also violated in the leather industry; the PIT-CNT makes the following allegations:

- the dismissal of several dozen workers most of whom were works' council delegates and several members of the trade union executive. These events have been denounced to the Ministry of Labour without any solution being found or any stop being put to repression by the employers. In the AZADIAN undertaking an active trade unionist was dismissed for having gone to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to make a formal denunciation concerning trade union repression by an employer. In the EXXON and SAN LUIS undertakings workers have been dismissed for having demanded the implementation of specific standards issued by the competent authority in this branch of activity. In practice, in both the leather and the clothing industries, trade union activity has become a secret or clandestine activity because the simple knowledge by the undertaking that a worker is a trade unionist results in his immediate dismissal or other kinds of discrimination; - in several undertakings workers are required to sign a form stating that they have never been a member of the leather industry trade union and that they will not become a member in the future. These documents must be signed before the worker joins the undertaking;

- the unlawful and abusive use of the unemployment insurance scheme. Thus in undertakings such as OROCUER, because of an alleged shortage of work, all the members of the works' council were placed on unemployment benefits at a time when work was being sent out to small workshops. The purpose of placing certain workers - all leaders of the works' council - on unemployment insurance is to damage the trade union organisation and make it impossible for militant leaders to establish contact with workers in the factory. In the same way, in the MILENI undertaking, all the workers were placed on unemployment benefits and then the same workers were offered work in another undertaking which refused to grant them the more advantageous conditions which they had acquired in the undertaking which had placed them on unemployment benefits. In this case all the workers were accepted in the undertaking with the express exception of all the members of the works' council who remained on unemployment benefits awaiting the notification of their dismissal.

&htab;49.&htab;In a communication dated 28 July 1987, which was supported by the World Federation of Trade Unions, SUA-VESTIMENTA alleges that during the wage council negotiations of June 1987, employers continued to refuse to apply different wage rates based on wage categories despite the fact that the Executive Power had adopted, in principle, a positive attitude by accepting the workers proposal to establish a preliminary categorisation which would update the text of a 1968 arbitration award (the term "precategorisation" is used because rates are based on minimum wages). The trade union proposal was included on an open agenda proposing a 100 per cent increase in the holiday wage, a 100 per cent increase in the Christmas bonus, the reinstatement of dismissed workers and workers who had been excluded from the industry and the establishment of crèches. The employers rejected the workers' proposal and tried to recuperate some of the benefits which the workers had already achieved such as 75 per cent of the holiday wage and the entire Christmas bonus. After two months' negotiation the Executive Power said that it was ready to vote with SUA-VESTIMENTA a higher percentage of wage increase than that offered by the employers; the vote of the Executive Power referred only to the wage percentage and "precategorisation" but excluded the vacation wage, the Christmas bonus and other wage demands. SUA-VESTIMENTA decided not to reject the percentage proposed by the Executive Power (17 and 18 per cent) but said that it was not enough. The CIV voted against the wage increase. In the same way SUA-VESTIMENTA refers to a series of acts of anti-trade union discrimination (blacklists, dismissals by the following undertakings: EVERFIT, DIRPLAIN (DALLAS), DEGANIA, ANTEX and EL MAGO).

&htab;50.&htab;In its communication of 8 October 1987 the Government expresses its basic agreement with the complainant organisations that the most important point to be stressed is the recognition that "the return to democracy in the country has led to a recognition of trade union organisations which play a proper role in the life of the country" and that "civil and political freedoms are recognised in the country and that as a consequence the principles of freedom of association are respected".

&htab;51.&htab;A detailed examination of the complainants' allegations shows that the complaint is motivated by facts which have been allegedly committed by employers in the clothing and leather sectors and that the Government has played no part in the acts which have been committed.

&htab;52.&htab;Since the complainant organisations make a generic charge concerning the failure to observe the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of Convention No. 98, a review must be made of measures taken for the full restoration of trade union rights. As the complainants point out, Uruguay has enjoyed a prestigious tradition in the respect and promotion of trade union freedoms. However it must be pointed out that this tradition has developed on the basis of a set of minimum standards comprising only article 57 of the Constitution, which dates from 1934 and the International Labour Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 ratified by Act No. 12030 of 27 November 1953 and the application of which, consonant with the monist conception, is predominant if not unanimous in law and jurisprudence in the form of directly applicable principles. Indeed, as the ILO itself has pointed out on more than one occasion, Uruguay was and is still today a unique case as regards the abstention of the State in standard-setting. This abstentionist policy, which has been defended and championed by the most prestigious national doctrine, has its raison d'être in the trade union resistance to all standard-setting by the State based on the ideological origins of the movement and encouraged by the precocious development of a modern society which reaped the benefit of periods of prosperity and well-being, and which enabled a labour relations system to be developedwhich was respectful of trade union rights. In this context, the only State measure of a general nature to guarantee the free exercise of these trade union rights was Decree No. 93/968 of 3 February 1968 to facilitate the application of international standards in force and the sanctions established by national legislation which were regulated collectively and which expressly prohibited anti-trade union practices. This quasi abstentionist system which as regards the coming into force of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 lasted almost 20 years (November 1953 to June 1973), has not been the subject of substantial observations by the Governing Body of the ILO.

&htab;53.&htab;The Government adds that shortly after the establishment of the democratic Government, Act No. 15738 dated 13 March 1985 marked an innovation in national practice when the so-called "Acts" Nos. 15137 (on occupational associations), 15328 and 15385 (collective agreements), 15530 (strikes), 15587 (trade union rights) and the so-called "Basic Act" No. 3 (strikes by public officials) - which had been brought into force by the de facto regime (1973-85) - were "cancelled" and not simply repealed. This presupposed that there wouldbe a restoration of the legal system which had been in force before 1973 regarding trade union rights based exclusively on the Constitution(article 57) and International Labour Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, as regulated by Decree No. 93/968. As a result, the trade union system which operates at present in Uruguay is characterised by State abstentionism and collective autonomy, principles which have been systematically defended by the trade union movement and the most characteristic labour doctrine which has been radically opposed to standard-setting by the State in this sphere. Under this system, tradeunions are set up autonomously without any kind of State intervention, with their legal personality being recognised de facto , and which by the simple fact of existing and without any need for obligatory registration may exercise any kind of trade union activity. In the same way freedom of association is fully guaranteed in accordance with the provisions of Convention No. 87, in particular as regards the positive and negative aspects of trade union freedom, the freedom to establish trade unions, internal autonomy, the freedom to associate at the international level and the freedom of an organisation to dissolve itself both in the private sector and as regards public officials.

&htab;54.&htab;However, it is obvious - as the ILO itself has pointed out - that although the state legislative abstention has proved particularly beneficial to trade union freedom, it does entail deficiencies resulting from the lack of standards making express provision for adequate and effective machinery for the special protection of trade union officials and activists against dismissal and other acts of union discrimination. This lack of standards expressly guaranteeing effective methods of protection, to which attention could be drawn before the break-up of the country's institutions only at one's own risk, posed a danger after the re-establishment of trade union freedoms which, although not of a generalised nature, became a source of concern to the Government.

&htab;55.&htab;Thus, after 12 years of trade union paralysis, it was feasible to assume that the reconstruction of workers' organisations might be resisted by some employers since it constituted a virtually unknown practice especially in the most recently developed sectors of activity. This was particularly true when the lack of experience in the subject coincided in many cases with that of a new generation of trade union officials who had entered the sphere of trade union action in the anomalous circumstances of resistance and clandestine conflict with the regime in force. The Government was conscious of this risk from the beginning and considered that for the moment, given the traditional inadequacy of internal positive law, the labour courts would have to play a fundamental role in a State of law such as that existing in Uruguay. Indeed, the lack of express standards has not prevented the free evolution of national jurisprudence as regards the protection of basic rights and freedoms with the introduction, under section 332 of the Constitution, of jurisprudence which provides adequate means of protection against acts of trade union discriminationin so far as it has been established. In this connection particular importance is to be attached to the jurisprudential adoption of the concept of protection ( amparo ), judicial orders not to innovate and the rulings which have been made for the reinstatement of workers and the establishment of coercive sanctions for the failure to implement such rulings. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court itself accepts the monist conception which advocates the incorporation ipso jure within the internal juridical system of the standards contained in International Labour Conventions following their ratification. Decree No. 93/968 expressly precludes the acts of trade union discrimination enumerated in Convention No. 98. Thus, it must be concluded that the foundation has been laid for at least the effective provision of the measures of protection enumerated in Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Recommendation No. 143.

&htab;56.&htab;Notwithstanding the above, the Government adds that it is important to emphasise that the autonomous tradition of the Uruguyan trade union movement, which as a result of its classist self-definitionembodies a certain degree of mistrust vis-à-vis the State, has often led it to avoid taking cases to court even in disputes of law and to prefer in most cases recourse to strikes. Aware too that the habitual slowness of the legal machinery only encourages the reticence of workers to resolve conflicts by recourse to such procedures, the Executive Power on 28 March 1985 submitted to Parliament a bill which sought, by means of the establishment of summary oral proceedings in labour matters to facilitate the defence of workers.

&htab;57.&htab;The Government points out that even if in the final analysis the courts are responsible for the effective remedy of infringements of trade union rights, for its part the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has exercised at the administrative level its supervisory powers in this respect in accordance with the provisions of Decree No. 93/968. To this end, when denunciations are made concerning infringements of trade union rights, an inquiry is carried out to ascertain the truth of the allegations. If trade union persecution is established, a resolution is issued stating that there has been a violation of trade union rights and workers are reinstated when the infringement is one of dismissal; fines are applied if the resolution is not obeyed. It should be borne in mind in this connection that, although section 9 of Decree No. 93/968 prescribes that infractions shall be punished with fines, the amount of which will depend on the number of workers affected, the General Inspectorate of Labour and Social Security has interpreted it in the sense that when anti-union measures are designed to prevent the growth and development of trade union activity, it must be considered that all the workers are in the end affected even though the measures may be specifically directed against one or more workers. Thus the size of the nominal fines has been increased.

&htab;58.&htab;In the final analysis, it must be said that the most effective protection of trade union rights is provided by legislation. In this connection the Government draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that a bill on trade union protection has been submitted to Parliament and has already been approved by the Chamber of Deputies.It is designed to fill once and for all the traditional lack of legislation in this field. While it is not appropriate here to go into its contents in detail, the Government intends that the measures should improve compliance with the obligations resulting from the ratification of Convention No. 98. In fact, the provisions are based on the statements of the Committee and will ensure the effective implementation of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98 by means of the explicit establishment of remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers with regard to workers. Thus, provision is made for rapid procedures and severe sanctions in the event of trade union discrimination as defined in detail in Recommendation No. 143. In this connection mention should also be made in the allegation of the PIT-CNT that this bill "does not satisfy the aspirations of the trade union movement since it results in excessive interference in the internal life of the trade union organisation by imposing voting systems in the election of trade union officials". As regards this categorical affirmation, it should be pointed out that it refers to thefinal paragraph of section 6 which stipulates that the supplementary guarantees to be provided to trade union officials are reserved to those who are elected by secret, obligatory and direct vote, without any further restrictions. In addition to the fact that this concept does not impose voting systems but simply explains the granting of additional guarantees to a specific voting system, the Government believes that the bill conforms to the statements of the Committee by accepting provisions which make it mandatory for workers' organisationsto elect their leaders by means of a specific voting system as long as such a system guarantees the right to free election, for example by a secret vote. Thus even though the complainant organisations are demanding the approval of a bill respecting trade union rights, their inconsiderate and continued rejection of the most minimum standard-setting by the State respecting their organisation, even in conditions which are completely in accordance with Convention No. 87, makes such a task difficult. The Government asks the Committee to decide whether the provisions of the proposed bill conform or not to ILO standards.

&htab;59.&htab;As regards the events which occurred in the clothing and leather industry, the Government points out that both sectors, which reflect the growth in exports of non-traditional products, have developed basically over the last 15 years, when trade union activity was for the most part prohibited by the de facto regime. Furthermore, these two branches of activity are characterised by their complex and dissimilar composition. In the clothing industry in particular use is still made of home work, family-scale workshops and medium-size establishments which supply most of the domestic market, whereas production from export factories floods the domestic market out of season. Following the re-establishment of freedom of association from 1 March 1985, it was clear from the beginning that both sectors were experiencing serious difficulties in the creation of a fluid labour relations system. In 1985 confrontation did not go beyond the undertaking level, with the emergence of a number of disputes; although they were settled by arbitration through the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, they nevertheless left a trail of intransigence. A general labour dispute broke out during the wage bargaining of June 1986, although in fact it was limited to the larger undertakings. During this dispute confrontation became unusually harsh when allegations were made on both sides. The employers accused the trade union officials and activists of an abusive use of the right to strike by recourse to go-slow techniques and working to rule, a deliberate reduction in productivity, the occupation of workplaces on the pretext of holding assemblies or stoppages as well as by acts of intimidation and the introduction of electricity cuts. The workers' organisations accused the employers of acts of indiscriminate interference through restrictions on trade union activities, suspensions and the dismissal of trade union officials and activists.

&htab;60.&htab;In this context, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, faced with a shortage of material means to carry out its task in the sphere of labour administration, dedicated all its efforts to mediation. It proposed the conclusion of a long-term agreement which, in addition to regulating working conditions, would establish the basesof a labour relations system. Although after many days of negotiation an agreement was reached which put an end to the dispute, it did not prove possible to include the regulation of labour relations.

&htab;61.&htab;At the end of the dispute, the workers' organisation alleged reprisals which essentially concerned the acts of persecution and discredit which are the subject of the complaint. In this respect it should be pointed out first that, as noted above, although there is no legislation which makes express provision for adequate and effective machinery to give special protection to trade union officials and activists, this deficiency is not absolute since case law has given rise to principles (by means of protection orders - amparo in Spanish, orders not to innovate, the reinstatement of workers and the provision of sanctions for non-compliance) which enable the courts to make effective at least the protective measures contained in Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Recommendation No. 143. Thus, although the judiciary is responsible for remedying infringements of trade union rights, and although it enjoys full independence in this respect, the Committee's attention is drawn to the fact that the Government has no information, at least in most cases, that the victims of the alleged acts have initiated legal proceedings.

&htab;62.&htab;The Committee's attention is also drawn to the difficulties which arise in practice in determining the trade union status of workers whose rights have allegedly been prejudiced. Indeed, given the absolute autonomy enjoyed by workers as regards the organisation of their trade unions which, by the simple fact of their existence, are authorised to carry out any kind of activity without the need for obligatory registration and the refusal of the trade union movement to carry out a voluntary registration of its officials, it has been necessary to investigate in each case whether in fact the worker holds the position of a trade union official. In most cases there is a lack of conclusive evidence to establish such a status. These difficulties,which are accentuated when it is a matter of deciding at the undertaking level about suspensions or dismissals, are compounded by others which inevitably appear when efforts are made to establish the real intentions of the employer who cites as a cause for such measures either gross misconduct or lack of work, a normal circumstance in export sectors which produce merchandise on a cyclical production basis.

&htab;63.&htab;As regards the presence of policemen in the establishments on strike, it should be pointed out that this occurred only in cases where workers had occupied premises and the employer asked the Ministry of the Interior to evacuate the premises in accordance with the provisions of Decree No. 512/966. It should also be pointed out that these evacuations were in all cases of a peaceful nature.

&htab;64.&htab;Although it is admitted by the complainant organisations, it should also be emphasised that in cases in which it has been shown that recourse has been had to fixed-term recruitment, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has clearly established the illicit nature of this form of recruitment and has come out in favour of employment stability, as can be seen from the documentation provided by the complainants.

&htab;65.&htab;Likewise, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has pointed out that although the individual agreements concluded by employers with a large number of workers may well be considered valid as regards the greater benefits which are provided for each of the signatory workers, such agreements are not valid as collective agreements and thus do not exclude workers who sign them from the working conditions established by collective bargaining.

&htab;66.&htab;As regards the cases in which the workers' organisation denounced the existence of clandestine workshops to which production from the establishments in dispute was transferred, the relevant inspections were carried out on more than 30 occasions without it being possible to establish the alleged clandestine character of these establishments, although on several occasions other infringements were recorded and duly punished.

&htab;67.&htab;Finally, the Government would like to inform the Committee that discussions with the presidents of the Chambers of Industry and Clothing, the PIT-CNT and the workers' organisations concerned have been initiated with a view to reaching an agreement by consensus on the establishment of an appropriate labour relations system.

&htab;68.&htab;The Government points out that, notwithstanding the above, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has decided to appoint a committee of inquiry to determine the truth of the allegations made to the Committee concerning anti-trade union practices in the clothing andleather industries. The committee will comprise persons of recognised expertise and independence. The committee, the establishment of which has been communicated to the complainant organisations, will be assisted by the National Directorate of Labour and Social Security and will be required to issue within a period of 90 days a report on all those cases which have not been the subject of a judicial inquiry. Once the committee's report is issued the Government will inform the Committee on its conclusions and, where applicable, the measures adopted as a result.

&htab;69.&htab;In a communication of 5 June 1988, the Government sends the texts of the conclusions of the above-mentioned committee of inquiry (see Annex I of the present report) and of a resolution of the Ministryof Labour and Social Security to implement the recommendations of the committee (see Annex II of the present report), in particular concerning the establishment of a permanent arbitration committee in the clothing and leather industries. In the same way, in its communication of 10 October 1988, in reply to the request by the Office dated 23 June 1988 for information and comments from the committee of inquiry, set up by the resolution dated 14 October 1987 to examine the various specific allegations made in the present case, the Government points out that the said committee has reported. According to the Government, the committee established its conclusions on the basis of the results of an examination of the documents available in the National Directorate of Labour (Division of Labour Relations), on court proceedings following disputes in the clothing industry, as well as on inspections carried out at its request by the General Inspectorate of Labour and Social Security and, in particular, information obtained from the parties on an individual and collective basis, during the six months of work it required to fulfil its mandate. The conclusions of the above-mentioned committee of inquiry were accepted as substantially correct by the parties as can be seen from the document dated 12 September 1988, to which reference is made below, in which both the representatives of the Chamber of Employers in the Clothing Industry and the representatives of the Single National Trade Union of Workers in the Clothing Industry and the PIT-CNT agreed "that the situation in the clothing industry has been one of gradual deterioration which has made it impossible to engage in flexible dialogue which is an indispensible means of collective bargaining" and confirmed "their firm intention to correct such a situation on the basis of mutual respect and consideration". The Government goes on to say that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security lacks the powers to order the reinstatement of workers who may have been suspended or dismissed in violation of their trade union rights and that, in Uruguay, the remedy of such violations is the responsibility of the jurisdictional bodies. The Government states that it has no information that the injured parties in the present case have filed judicial proceedings to obtain such redress. Furthermore, the Government points out that the arbitration committee established by a resolution dated 3 June 1988 has been making relentless efforts to reverse the blatant decline in labour relations in the clothing industry and has even obtained the formal agreement of the parties to negotiate the establishment of "a collective agreement to establish minimum rules of conduct by the parties on the basis of points which include the recognition and representativity of the parties, the obligation to negotiate in good faith, the abstention from unfair practices, the fixing of time limits and places for discussions and co-ordination in the negotiation levels". The Government encloses a photocopy of the document signed on 12 September 1988 at the headquarters of the Ministry by the members of the Arbitration Committee for the Clothing Industry, representatives of the Chamber of Employers in the Clothing Industry, SUA-VESTIMENTA and PIT-CNT. The collective agreement which was then concluded by the arbitration committee appointed by this Ministry incorporates the conclusions and suggestions of the study carried out by the mission appointed by the ILO in 1986 and without doubt constitutes a step forward in national practice.

&htab;70.&htab;The Committee observes that in the present case the complainant organisations have alleged in general the absence of effective measures by the authorities to prevent, as provided for by Article 3 of Convention No. 98, the very serious violations of trade union rights which have occurred in the clothing industry since 1986. More specifically, they allege the intransigence and anti-trade union attitude of the Chamber of Employers in the Clothing Industry in negotiations in the wage councils and the subsequent occurence of numerous acts of discrimination against trade union officials and members, as detailed by the complainant organisations. The PIT-CNT has made similar allegations of anti-trade union discrimination of the clothing industry.

&htab;71.&htab;As regards the application of Article 3 of Convention No. 98 ("machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding articles"), the Committee notes that according to the complainant organisations all an employer has to do to remove active trade unionists from workplaces is to dismiss them "without giving reasons" and pay the corresponding compensation. In the same way, according to the trade union organisations, the fines established by Decree No. 93/68 in the event of discrimination are so low that it is not possible to speak of "adequate machinery" as used in Convention No. 98, in addition to the fact that the decision to impose a sanction is a matter of discretion for the administration. The Committee also notes that the complainant organisations point out that the bill respecting trade union rights approved by the Chamber of Deputies does not meet the aspirations of the trade union movement which believes that the imposition of voting systems governing the election of trade union officials presupposes interference in the internal life of trade union organisations.

&htab;72.&htab;The Committee observes that in its reply to these allegationsthe Government insists on a series of points: the existence of minimum standards regarding trade union freedom as a result of the special tradition of collective autonomy in Uruguay and the resistance of the trade union movement to any State regulation; the prohibition of the anti-trade union practices enumerated in Convention No. 98 by the provisions of Decree No. 93/68 which empowers the Ministry of Labour to impose fines when such practices are corroborated; and the fundamental role to be played by the courts as a result of the above-mentioned autonomous tradition. In this respect the Government emphasises the jurisprudential adoption of the concept of protection ( amparo in Spanish), the judicial orders to refrain from innovations and, in particular, the reinstatement of workers and the provision for sanctions in cases of non-compliance. The courts are thus empowered to give effect at least to the protective measures enumerated in (c), (d) and (e) of Recommendation No. 143. However, the Government also draws attention to the customary slowness of the legal process (which it hopes to alleviate by a bill respecting summary oral proceedings in labour disputes) and the widespread mistrust of the State as a result of the tradition of independence which has led the Uruguayan trade union movement, in most cases, to avoid recourse to the courts.

&htab;73.&htab;The Committee observes that both the complainant organisations and the Government agree that there is a lack of adequate and effective machinery for providing special protection to trade union officials and activists against dismissal and other acts of anti-trade union discrimination. The Committee observes, however, that the bill respecting trade union rights, approved by the Chamber of Deputies, which in the view of the Government conforms to the recommendations of the Committee, does not meet the aspirations of the trade union movement for the above-mentioned reasons.

&htab;74.&htab;The Committee observes that the proposed bill respecting trade union rights is opposed by the complainant organisations because of the final paragraph of section 6 which stipulates:

&htab;The following persons shall enjoy additional guarantees (inter alia, prior authorisation by the labour authorities regarding dismissals, transfers or downgrading in working conditions) within the limits established by sections 12 and 13:

&htab;(a) members of the executive committees of trade unions, federations, confederations or trade union organisations;

&htab;(b) substitute members of the executive committees when acting as full members; &htab;(c) staff delegates on joint or tripartite committees when proposed by the trade union organisation or elected by all the staff;

&htab;(d) members of internal committees, works councils or similar bodies;

&htab;(e) applicants for executive posts in the trade union, staff delegates, internal committees, works councils or similar bodies.

&htab;The election of the persons mentioned above shall be by secret, obligatory and direct vote.

The Committee would like to point out that in accordance of Article 3 of Convention No. 87, workers' organisations "shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom ... . The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof". There is thus no doubt that within the meaning of the Convention, the regulation of procedures and methods for the election of trade union officials is primarily to be governed by the trade union's rules themselves. Indeed the fundamental idea of Article 3 of Convention No. 87 is that workers and employers may decidefor themselves the rules which should govern the administration of their organisations and the elections which are held therein [see 191st Report, Case No. 763, para. 29]. That being said, the Committee has considered acceptable legislation which is designed to promote democratic principles within trade union organisations. Certainly secret and direct voting is one of the democratic methods, and in this respect there would be no objection from the point of view of the principles of freedom of association for legislation to contain provisions in this respect. On the other hand, this is not the case as regards obligatory voting [see 191st Report, Case No. 763, paras. 28and 29]. In the same way, the Committee has pointed out, for example, that legislation imposing penalties on workers who do not participate in elections is not in harmony with the provisions of Convention No. 87[see 191st Report, Case No. 763, para. 29]. Thus, the Committee asks the Government, in the event that the bill respecting trade union rights should be adopted, to take the necessary measures with a view to suppressing the requirement respecting obligatory voting in the elections of trade union officials as a condition for entitlement to the special trade union protection. However, the Committee would like to point out that this does not in any way mean that the Committee is giving its support to the said bill - or is rejecting it - in as far asthe trade union organisations have made reservations in this respect. The level of protection for the exercise of trade union rights which results from the provisions and principles of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 constitutes a minimum standard which may be complemented and it is desirable that other supplementary guarantees should be added resultingfrom the constitutional and legal system of any given country, its traditions as regards labour relations, trade union action or bargaining between the parties. At all events, and bearing in mind the numerous allegations of anti-union discrimination in the clothing and leather industry, the Committee emphasises the need to establish adequate, impartial and rapid procedures to ensure respect of the rightto organise which avoids any kind of anti-trade union discrimination.

&htab;75.&htab;As regards the specific cases of anti-trade union discrimination in the clothing and leather industries mentioned in the complaints, the Committee observes that the complainant organisations have alleged the existence of blacklists which make it impossible for trade union leaders and militants to obtain stable employment; the dismissal or placing on unemployment benefits of a large number of officials as a result of the dispute; the dismissal or suspension of hundreds of workers who had actively participated in the trade union actions; the presence of police in plants; the locking of workers inside plants occupied peacefully by workers; the anti-union use of fixed-term recruitment and of the unemployment benefit scheme; the carrying out of pre-employment inquiries into workers who apply for work in the clothing undertakings; the signing of collective agreements behind the back of the trade union organisation; the subjecting of contracts to non-union membership.

&htab;76.&htab;Firstly, the Committee notes that the Government has not referred specifically to each of the allegations but rather has limited itself to making general statements and references to the committee of inquiry set up by the Ministry of Labour following the filing of the complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee takes note of the explanations of the Government in this respect.

&htab;77.&htab;The Comittee notes that the committee of inquiry set up by the Ministry of Labour has established the following facts:

- the refusal of undertakings to engage in discussions with trade union officials, preferring direct negotiation with the workers;

- the absence in all cases of a criterion which may be said to be objective in the selection of workers to be dismissed or to be placed on benefits. Those involved generally include a high percentage of trade union delegates or unionised workers;

- preventive suspension as a preliminary step towards dismissal is carried out after trade union stoppages or measures;

- a frequent number of dismissals before the end of the unemployment insurance period. This hastiness suggests in some cases that there is an intention to end the contract of certain workers, generally trade union officials;

- although this cannot be considered a completely objective element, the lack of opportunities available to dismissed trade union leaders to find employment in other undertakings involved in the same activity is suggestive; - the use of overtime even when there are workers available who are on unemployment benefits, although this does not conclusively show that there is any discriminatory attitude since there can be a significant reduction in production during a specific period when workers are placed on unemployment benefits, and during this period circumstances may arise which justify the use of overtime without there being any need to re-engage workers who are on unemployment insurance benefits;

- the presence of policemen on the premises of certain undertakings in situations which do not conform strictly to the conditions established by Decree No. 512/966. The presence of such officials is usually requested by the undertakings which allege that the measure is to protect workers from being harassed by other workers following their refusal to participate in work stoppages. Unionised workers interpret these measures as a form of intimidation.

&htab;78.&htab;The Committee notes the Government's statement that it has no information, at least as regards most of the cases, that those persons who were the victims of the alleged acts have filed legal proceedings. It also notes that the Government reiterates the powers which have been granted to the courts to ensure effective implementation of the protection measures prescribed by Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Recommendation No. 143 (recourse procedure open to workers' representatives in the event of unjustifiable termination, provision of effective remedies including reinstatement with payment of unpaid wages and the obligation of the employer to prove that the action was justified).

&htab;79.&htab;The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, there are practical difficulties in verifying the trade union official status of trade union official workers who claim to have been affected and in determining the intentions of employers who, on their side, allege misconduct or lack of work. The Committee also takes note of the Government's statements concerning the presence of police in the establishments on strike and on the peaceful character of the evacuations, the attitude of the Ministry regarding instances where fixed-term contracts have been used and its explanations on the agreements signed by the employer with a large number of individual workers.

&htab;80.&htab;The Committee notes that it appears from the conclusions of the committee of inquiry set up by the Ministry of Labour to examine the allegations made to the Committee on Freedom of Association that there have been acts of anti-trade union discrimination and anti-union measures and practices contrary to collective bargaining in the clothing and leather industries. In the circumstances, although it regrets that in most cases the trade union organisations and the persons concerned have not made use of the legal methods of redress, the Committee emphasises, on the basis of the observations of the above-mentioned committee of inquiry, the need to remedy the acts and anti-trade union practices which have been carried out since 1986, contrary to the provisions of Convention No. 98.

&htab;81.&htab;Finally, as regards the alleged intransigence of the Chamber of Employers in the Clothing Industry in the negotiations in 1986 and 1987, the Committee regrets that there was a lack of flexibility. The Committee notes that in the conclusions of the committee of inquiry setup by the Ministry of Labour, attention is drawn to the need to promotemethods of negotiation and dialogue between the parties. It observes in this respect that a tripartite arbitration commission has been set up which would become a permanent negotiation body and that the partieshave been invited to adopt, in a spirit of responsibility, a commitmentto engage in dialogue, to resolve differences of opinion and to establish communication on a permanent basis. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that at the request of the arbitration commission a formal agreement has been concluded between the parties to negotiate a collective agreement which will determine the relations between the parties, in particular as regards the obligation to negotiate in good faith and to refrain from unfair labour practices. The Committee expresses the hope that the activities of the arbitrationcommission and the application of the future collective agreement will make it possible to achieve the set objectives and results. The Committee would generally recall the principle that although the question as to whether one of the parties adopts a conciliatory or intransigent attitude to the claims of the other is a matter for negotiation, both employers and unions should bargain in good faith making every effort to arrive at an agreement. [See, for example, 139th Report, Case No. 725, para. 279 and 236th Report, Case No. 1275, para. 457, Case No. 1206, para. 493 and Case No. 1291, para. 695.]

&htab;82.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee requests the Government, in the event that the proposed bill on trade union rights should be approved, to take the necessary measures with a view to suppressing the requirement of obligatory voting in the elections of trade union officials as a condition of entitlement to the special trade union protection; the Committee emphasises the need to establish adequate, impartial and rapid procedures to ensure respect of the right to organise which avoids any kind of anti-union discrimination.

(b) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the committee of inquiry set up by the Ministry of Labour, the Committee emphasises the need to remedy the anti-union acts and practices which have been occurring since 1986, contrary to the provisions of Convention No. 98, and notes with interest that the tripartite arbitration commission set up to facilitate dialogue, negotiation and the self-regulation of conflicts in the clothing and leather industries has reached an agreement between the parties to negotiate a collective agreement to regulate relations, in particular as regards collective bargaining. The Committee expresses the hope that this will lead in future to negotiations carried out in good faith in which both the employers and the trade unions will be able, in a climate of mutual confidence, to make the necessary efforts to reach periodic collective agreements.

&htab;83.&htab;In a communication dated 10 June 1987 the National Seamen, Ports and General Workers' Union of Liberia (NSP&GWU) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Liberia. The Government sent its observations on the case in a communication dated 4 May 1988 and received in the ILO on 19 July 1988.

&htab;84.&htab;Liberia 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).

&htab;85.&htab;In its letter of 10 June 1987 signed by Mr. T.P. Mooney, Vice-President for Administration, the NSP&GWU alleges interference by the Labour Ministry authorities in its internal affairs, namely in the outcome of the election of its president.

&htab;86.&htab;The complainant states that, in accordance with its by-laws and constitution, the union's general convention was held on 29 August 1986. The Director of Trade Union Affairs of the Ministry of Labour supervised the convention in accordance with the Labour Practices Law of Liberia. Recognition and other relevant documents were then handed over to the legitimate leadership of the union. Indeed, from copies of letters appended to the complaint, it appears that, on 1 September 1986, the union's president elect submitted to the Labour Ministry authorities the documents required for recognition (list of names of elected officers and minutes of the meeting). On 11 September, the Minister in turn informed the President of Liberia that the results of the union's election clearly showed that the union members did not want a certain Mr. G.T. Tarbah as president (who received zero votes) and preferred Mr. N. Gibson (who received all the votes of the 30 delegates attending the convention). The Minister pointed out that under the legislation in force, any candidate to the election proceedings may file with the Ministry of Labour written objections to the conduct of the election within 24 hours after receiving the tally of votes; any person or organisation not a party to the election proceedings may file written objections to the conduct of the election within five calendar days after the tally of votes has been received by the parties to the election. In addition, he indicated that if no objections is filed within the allowed time, or after all objections have been finally determined, the Ministry of Labour shall certify the party receiving the valid votes of the majority of members voting in the election, said certification being final and conclusive and not subject to further objections. Since the Ministry of Labour had not received any written objections from any party, the Minister stated that Mr. N. Gibson was recognised as the legitimate president of the union, in keeping with the decision of its members.

&htab;87.&htab;The complainant states that it therefore came as a surprise when, on 13 October 1986, the President of Liberia replied to the Minister of Labour, noting with concern that, while an NSP&GWU complaint to the President's Office was still being investigated by his legal adviser, a handful of union members had been able to hold an election. The President's reply, a copy of which is supplied by the complainant, states that, on the basis of the report resulting from this investigation and the agreement of merger between the two factions that were before the Liberian Supreme Court, the legitimate president of the NSP&GWU is Mr. G. Tarbah. The President directed the Minister to recognise Mr. G. Tarbah as the union's president and the Minister, by letter of 20 October, accordingly did so.

&htab;88.&htab;The complainant points out that the original recognition of Mr. N. Gibson's presidency has still not been revoked. Lastly, it provides a copy of a Supreme Court Certificate, dated 19 December 1984 and signed by the Acting Clerk of Court, to the effect that George T. Tarbah had been convicted of theft of property and was sentenced on that date to three years' imprisonment with hard labour.

&htab;89.&htab;In its reply of 4 May 1988, the Government denies the allegations concerning the results of the NSP&GWU convention of 29 August 1986 and the granting of a letter of recognition from the Ministry. It states that, while it is true that a convention was held on that date with the Ministry of Labour being invited to monitor it, the meeting was not held in accordance with the union's by-laws and constitution because, as the minutes of the convention show, representatives from only three of the NSP&GWU's 13 membership regions (the counties of Nimba, Grand Bassa and Montserrado) were present and only 30 delegates from the three counties in fact voted at the election. Moreover, certain members of the union had filed a complaint against Mr. Mooney (who was later elected Vice-President for Administration) and others, and this complaint was under investigation when he held the convention in question. Therefore, states the Government, the meeting was void from the beginning.

&htab;90.&htab;As regards the allegation that the President of the Republic ordered the Ministry of Labour to recognise Mr. Tarbah as president of the union contrary to the election results, the Government denies this, stressing that there was no valid election since the convention was invalid. Moreover, it claims that the Ministry of Labour only received a letter calling its attention to the fact that a complaint had been filed by certain union members against Mr. Mooney and others and the investigation into the complaint should have been completed before any election took place.

&htab;91.&htab;As for the allegation that the Ministry's letter of recognition had not been revoked by the authorities, the Government states that, since the convention was void from the beginning, the letter of recognition reflecting the election results was also null and void. According to the Government, the legitimate leaders of the union were duly informed after it was discovered that the convention had not respected the required quorum.

&htab;92.&htab;In conclusion, the Government points out that it has ratified Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and has given effect to the provisions of these Conventions through its laws and national practice.

&htab;93.&htab;The Committee notes that the allegations in this case centre on government interference in the internal affairs of the complainant union by refusing to accept the results of the union's 1986 election of officers. The Committee takes note of the Government's denial of interference, based on the fact that the elections in question were void on two grounds: (1) a complaint was being investigated by the presidential legal adviser into one group of the union's members headed by Mr. Mooney, so he ought not to have convened a meeting; and (2) under the union's by-laws a voting quorum had not been obtained for the election. The Committee observes that an attachment to the complaint refers vaguely to a merger agreement between "the two factions" but that no mention is made of this in the Government's more recent observations, inferring that no merger ever came about.

&htab;94.&htab;In past cases when the Committee has been presented with situations in which government authorities appear to have interfered in election results by favouring or recognising one internal group over another, the Committee has recalled [See, for example, 243rd Report, Case No. 1271 (Honduras), paras. 435 and 438.] that, in ratifying Convention No. 87, a government undertakes to leave it to workers' organisations themselves to draw up their own constitutions and rules and to elect their representatives in full freedom. In the present case, an examination of the labour legislation in question shows that section 4102 of the Labour Practices Law provides for the supervision by the administrative authorities of trade union elections and the Committee notes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has criticised this discrepancy with Article 3 of Convention No. 87 for many years. In its 1988 observation on Liberia's observance of that Convention, the Committee of Experts noted that, according to the Government, a new draft Labour Code had taken account of the Committee's comments and it urged the Government to ensure the adoption of the necessary amendments in the near future. To date, however, it appears that there has been no repeal or amendment of section 4102 of the law.

&htab;95.&htab;The facts of this case show, however, that the government reaction was of a different kind: Mr. Mooney's group (which lodged this complaint) received a letter of recognition from the Ministry of Labour, but the Ministry subsequently reversed its position after receiving orders from a higher authority. Since neither the complainant nor the Government supplied a copy of the union's by-laws concerning the requirements for convening meetings or election quorums, the Committee is not in a position to comment on the alleged procedural irregularities. In any case, the Committee notes that, since 20 October 1986 when the Ministry executed the President's orders, Mr. G. Tarbah has represented the workers of Liberia at the 75th (1988) Session of the International Labour Conference.

&htab;96.&htab;It is not for the Committee to decide which group should represent the members of the NSP&GWU but to examine whether there was government interference with the workers' free choice of union officers. The Committee has stated in many cases that it is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions within a trade union organisation so long as the Government does not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organisation. [See, for example, 217th Report, Case No. 1086 (Greece), para. 93.] Moreover, in cases of internal conflict, the Committee has pointed out that judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view for the purpose of settling questions concerning the representation of the union concerned; another possible means of settlement would be to appoint an independent jointly-agreed-upon arbitrator to seek a joint solution and, if necessary, to hold new elections. [See, for example, 172nd Report, Case No. 865 (Ecuador), para. 75.]

&htab;97.&htab;In the present case, the Committee notes that procedures exist to settle questionable election results: section 4103(2) and (3) of the Labour Practices Law empower, respectively, any union member to challenge the election of a person convicted of a crime and to complain of violation of the law or the rules of the union concerned as regards the election of officers and that such a complaintcan then be submitted by the labour authorities to the ordinary courts for an order to set aside the invalid election and to direct the conduct of a new one. In this connection, the Committee further notes that Mr. G. Tarbah had been convicted in 1984 of theft of property and that, likewise, an unspecified complaint against Mr. Mooney and his group was before the presidential legal adviser in August 1986. Yet, despite the availability of this appeals procedure, no complaint was filed against the Ministry's recognition of Mr. G. Tarbah in October 1986. It therefore appears that the membership has accepted Mr. Tarbah's presidency of the union, even if Mr. Mooney's group did not.

&htab;98.&htab;In any event, taking a pragmatic approach to this case, the Committee notes from the legislation that national labour organisation elections should take place every three years, so that the next election of officers for the NSP&GWU is due in the second half of 1989. In the next elections, both groups will be able to present candidates and, hopefully, the new Labour Code will then be in force to ensure that the union's elections will not be supervised or interfered with by the authorities. In the meantime, if the internal dissension within the NSP&GWU starts to affect the functioning and effectiveness of the union, the general membership will no doubt seek a settlement along the lines suggested by the Committee above.

&htab;99.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) in line with the request expressed this year by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, the Committee trusts that the new labour legislation, which will no longer permit government intervention in union elections, will be rapidly adopted;

(b) while noting that the allegations are linked to internal dissension within the union, the Committee considers that it is for the general membership to decide, if necessary, whether to call for the help of an independent arbitrator or for new elections or to wait for next year's re-elections to vote for whichever group best represents the members' interests.

&htab;100.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its meeting in May 1988 and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 256th Report, paras. 383-400]. The Government subsequently sent its observations in communications of 25 May, 30 May, 3 June, 2 August and 13 September 1988.

&htab;101.&htab;The Committee was also informed that the Director-General, accompanied by Mr. Gernigon, Chief of the Freedom of Association Branch, paid a visit to Côte d'Ivoire from 27 to 29 July 1988 in order to examine the questions raised in the present case with the government authorities.

&htab;102.&htab;Côte d'Ivoire 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).

&htab;103.&htab;The World Federation Of Teachers' Unions (FISE) alleged that the congress of the National Union of Secondary School Teachers of Côte d'Ivoire (SYNESCI) had been suspended; that certain non-paid up elements had gone ahead with an illegal creation of an executive, which had occupied the union's headquarters with the help of the national police; and that SYNESCI's bank accounts had been frozen by order of the Minister for National Education in favour of the unlawful executive committee.

&htab;104.&htab;The FISE also alleged that three SYNESCI leaders, including the Secretary-General, Mr. Laurent Akoun, had been arrested and subsequently sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from four to six months for "misappropriation of union funds". It added that 13 other unionists had been detained in the Séguéla military camp, 18 had had their salaries suspended and six had been suspended from duties.

&htab;105.&htab;In the light of information available at its meeting in May 1988, the Committee submitted the following interim conclusions to the Governing Body: - Given the seriousness of the numerous allegations in this case, the Committee would like to hope that the Government will do its utmost to ensure that respect for trade union rights of teachers is guaranteed in Côte d'Ivoire.

- The Committee asks that the National Union of Secondary School Teachers (SYNESCI), which has challenged the unlawful executive purporting to represent secondary school teachers, will have its case soon heard before the courts and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the case.

- The Committee requests the Government to supply copies of the December 1987 judgement sentencing three SYNESCI leaders to prison terms for misappropriation of union funds and urges the Government to release or to inform it of the charges brought against the 13 trade union leaders who have apparently been detained without charge or trial in the Séguéla military camp since 31 October 1987 and of their current situation.

- As regards the acts of anti-union discrimination taken by the authorities against SYNESCI activists over the last six months, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the current situation of those teachers who have been suspended or transferred or have had salaries suspended because of their trade union activities or functions.

&htab;106.&htab;In its communication of 25 May 1988, the Government explains that prior to its congress the SYNESCI had encountered internal difficulties. There was general disenchantment among the activists, with the exception of a hard core, itself deeply divided. The members were reluctant to pay their contributions. The national executive was glaringly inefficient and its management disastrous. The congress was crucial, since the leadership wanted to maintain its position by all possible means, whereas the vast majority of secondary school teachers wanted a change of leadership if SYNESCI was to be revitalised. Already on the opening day of the congress, two groups clashed and the group supporting the retiring executive left the hall. The other groupelected an executive for the duration of the congress and continued itswork. The outgoing leadership was summoned to appear and account for its management over the preceding term. On its refusal to do so, a censure motion was passed against it. Four commissions were set up andthe congress carried on its work until the end. Mr. Djanwet Kouakou was elected Secretary-General by an absolute majority. The new Secretary-General took possession of the SYNESCI premises on 24 July, accompanied by a bailiff.

&htab;107.&htab;On 4 August 1987, the new Secretary-General submitted a complaint to the Public Prosecutor of Abidjan against Messrs. Laurent Akoun, Traoré Yaya and Adoukou Vanga, members of the outgoing SYNESCI executive, for breach of trust and illegal possession of funds (14,700,000 CFA francs) and technical equipment belonging to the union.Following this complaint, information was obtained establishing that the technical equipment had been taken away while the congress was meeting by Mr. Laurent Akoun. Furthermore, between 21 and 23 July 1987, the sum of 14,700,000 CFA francs had been withdrawn from three different banks on cheques signed by the retiring Secretary-General and countersigned by the retiring Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer.

&htab;108.&htab;When questioned, the accused admitted the facts, but explained that the sums withdrawn from the banks were used to pay the salaries of Mr. Akoun's office staff and various expenses arising from the congress and union activities. As far as the equipment was concerned, they had intended to deposit it in a safe place and restore it to its rightful owners after the congress which they had envisaged calling. On 19 September 1987, appearing before the examining magistrate, Mr. Laurent Akoun declared that he was ready and able to hand over formally SYNESCI's technical equipment and the funds, after deduction of expenses, amounting to 3,850,000 CFA francs (approximately7,700 French francs) to pay for the union's operating costs. The other two accused signified their agreement with these new statements by Mr. Laurent Akoun. On 1 October 1987, lawyers acting for the accused handed over to the examining magistrate the funds and the technical office equipment misappropriated by their clients.

&htab;109.&htab;Mr. Laurent Akoun was remanded in custody on 5 September 1987 and the two others on 11 September 1987, and all the accused appeared before the Abidjan Criminal Court on charges of breach of trust and receiving stolen goods. Before the Abidjan Criminal Court, and subsequently before the Appeal Court, to which they had appealed at the same time as the Public Prosecutor, the accused maintained that the restitution which they had made nullified their indictment and that the congress had been dissolved on 21 July 1987 as a result of the disturbances; this meant that Mr. Djanwet Kouakou had not been properly elected and was therefore not qualified to represent SYNESCI.

&htab;110.&htab;The Abidjan Criminal Court and Appeal Court held that, in the absence of any proof, the alleged election dispute was wholly illusory and that the forced restitution carried out by the accused was no more than an act of repentance which did not erase their fraudulent intent and, at best, constituted extenuating circumstances. On these grounds both courts sentenced Mr. Akoun and Mr. Traoré Yaya to six months' imprisonment without remission and a 100,000 CFA francs' fine and Mr. Adoukou Vanga to four months' imprisonment without remission and a 50,000 CFA francs' fine.

&htab;111.&htab;On 21 September 1987, Mr. Laurent Akoun and his supporters brought a suit before the Labour Court, which was clearly not competentto deal with the case and which rejected their complaint in a decision of 5 November 1987. The parties then applied to the Abidjan Court of First Instance for the annulment of the July 1987 elections. The Court held, in a judgement handed down on 6 April 1988 (a copy of which is supplied by the Government), that the opening of the congress had the effect of dissolving all the union's management bodies, automatically terminating their terms of office, and that Mr. Akoun could not act as Secretary-General of SYNESCI since he had lost that position and could only regain it as a result of re-election by the congress. His complaint was therefore declared irreceivable.

&htab;112.&htab;The Government also states that after the arrest of Mr. Akoun, a massive disinformation and indoctrination campaign was launched by his supporters, with the circulation of seditious, defamatory, tendentious and harmful tracts displaying exceptional violence against certain political personalities, against the law, against the education administration and, above all, against the President of the Republic.

&htab;113.&htab;Notwithstanding the extreme gravity of these deeds and actions, which were contrary to the Côte d'Ivoire Public Service Act, their authors, although public servants, were merely questioned and, having admitted their involvement, incurred no greater penalty than assignment to other posts in Côte d'Ivoire. Some had their deferment of military service lifted and, like all citizens of Côte d'Ivoire, were simply sent to serve their legal term at, among others, the Séguéla camp. Finally, those who resigned their posts out of solidarity with their comrades before the courts naturally lost their salaries for the time not worked, while others who had refused to accept their new assignment also, quite legitimately, had their salaries suspended.

&htab;114.&htab;As regards the SYNESCI congress, the Government considers that the changes in the union leadership are not the responsibility of the Government. In the Government's opinion, it is a result of the rift between the activists and their known opponents before and during the congress, which had been universally anticipated as a chance to change the national leadership which was inefficient in trade union matters, unnecessarily rigid and lacking in any distinct policy. This explains why, before the congress, Mr. Akoun had altered article 24 - which became article 26 of the union's regulations - and furthermore added a new article 3, whereby the means of scrutinising the election of a Secretary-General was changed. Only 82 people would have the legal right to choose the Secretary-General, 82 sure supporters since they were all officials of subsections established by the existing executive. Moreover, profiting from the widespread disenchantment and the refusal of almost all the teaching profession to pay up their unionsubscriptions (out of a membership of 7,000, only 150 were fully paid up), Mr. Akoun served his own interests by opposing the last-minute move to regularise the situation on the part of all those who he knew had decided to oust him and his team from the leadership of the union. As dedicated teachers, the majority were dissatisfied with the running of their trade union organisation and disgusted by their inability to make their voices heard at their own congress; after exhausting all other avenues of peaceful dialogue, which had led nowhere for several years, they finally imposed their will by weight of numbers.

&htab;115.&htab;The Government adds that, confident in their capacity and numbers, the members of the congress did not feel concerned by a sine die adjournment of the XVth Congress by a minority whose sole interest was in preserving the status quo. In this matter, the Government confined itself to preventing disorder. The other aspect - the decision as to the legality or illegality of the congress proceedings - is, in this country which respects the separation of powers, the responsibility of the judiciary and a submission to declare the proceedings of the XVth Congress invalid has in fact come before the courts. If the Government had acted differently, not only would the cry of inadmissible interference have gone up, but the Government would actually have been usurping the position of the judiciary. This is an additional reason why, on their request for an audience, the Head of State received the new executive, as he had always done for the outgoing executive.

&htab;116.&htab;As regards the criminal action taken against the former officials of SYNESCI, the Government states that it was neither based on mere assumption nor was in any sense a political trial. It was a matter of common law, treated as such, with scrupulous respect for the law in force, attended at all times by three representatives of the Paris and Abidjan bars; the plaintiff was Mr. Djanwet Kouakou, the newSecretary-General, whose right to defend the interests of SYNESCI was all the greater since there has been no judicial decision to invalidatehis election. Moreover, every citizen has the right to denounce criminal acts and the Public Prosecutor acted on his complaint. In conclusion on this point, the Government declares that in any case it had no hand in the sentences imposed and that, even if it could give orders to a representative of the Public Prosecutor's Office, it would by no means be able to influence the verdict of a court.

&htab;117.&htab;Finally, the Government considers that the administrative decisions on military service, reassignment and suspension of salaries are trifling in relation to the misdemeanours committed, which all involved violations of the Public Service Act. Section 14 of the Act states that an official is free to hold his own philosophical, political and religious opinions. The expression of such opinions, however, may not challenge the principles laid down in the Constitutionof the State. It is not permissible except off duty and may only be indulged with the discretion appropriate to the official's position. It may not be circulated in writing without the authorisation of the minister responsible. No charge has been taken up, or even laid, against the accused in relation to the insults and libels against the Head of State himself, all the attacks on his public and private life and the insults directed at the public authorities, which come under sections 174 and 243 ff. of the Penal Code.

&htab;118.&htab;The Government considers that, contrary to the allegations of the complainant, there has been no infringement on its part of the relevant provisions of Convention No. 87, Convention No. 98 and Convention No. 151.

&htab;119.&htab;In its communication of 3 June 1988, the Government states that the three SYNESCI leaders have served their sentences for breach of trust and receiving stolen goods. When released from prison, they proceeded to Séguéla camp to fulfil their legal term of military service. The Government therefore considers that their presence at Séguéla is due not to their lawful exercise of trade union activities, but to reprehensible actions committed in violation of section 14 of the General Public Service Act of Côte d'Ivoire.

&htab;120.&htab;In a communication of 2 August 1988, sent to the ILO after the Director-General had returned from his mission, the Government points out that the incidents that occurred during the last SYNESCI congress were the outcome of an internal dispute within the organisation between the various trade union factions. These factions had had the opportunity to put forward their views within the organisation and the Government in no way interfered in this internal matter of the SYNESCI. Only the judiciary had had to intervene in a civil trial and in a criminal trial initiated by both factions. The court, to whom the cases were referred by the parties concerned, ruled, on the one hand, on the validity of the elections held during the aforementioned congress and, on the other hand, on the criminal charges brought against the three former SYNESCI officials.

&htab;121.&htab;As regards the situation of persons who had been called to do their military service in military camps, the Government states that these persons had taken up their civilian teaching activities once again within their legal term of military service. Furthermore, measures are at present being studied so that the suspended salaries might be fully restored to the teachers concerned. Finally, the Government assures the Committee on Freedom of Association that the persons in question were never excluded from Ivorian society since there had been direct contacts with members of the Government on their situation.

&htab;122.&htab;In a further communication dated 13 September 1988, the Government states that this matter has reached its conclusion with Mr. Akoun and his colleagues regaining unconditionally the positions they had held in the administration before the incidents which gave rise to the present case before the Committee; their salaries have been restored as from July 1988 and the arrears in salary going back to the date of their suspension will be paid. The Government adds that only the results of the XVth SYNESCI Congress remain in place since this was a purely trade union problem in which the Government should not interfere.

&htab;123.&htab;The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant has submitted allegations concerning interference by the Government in the internal affairs of the National Union of Secondary School Teachers of Côte d'Ivoire (SYNESCI), the sentencing of three officials from this organisation to terms of imprisonment, the internment of other trade unionists in military camps and discriminatory measures taken against teachers, such as transfers or suspensions of salaries.

&htab;124.&htab;On the first point, the Committee notes that the matter can be traced back to the disputes that broke out between opposing groups during the SYNESCI congress. After the outgoing leadership had left the deliberations, the congress elected a new trade union executive which took over the premises and funds of the organisation. These elections were contested by the former leadership before the courts which rejected the complaint.

&htab;125.&htab;The Committee has always considered that it was not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions within a trade union organisation, so long as the Government did not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organisation. [See, for example, 217th Report, Case No. 1086 (Greece), para. 93.] In cases of this nature when there have been internal dissensions, the Committee has also pointed out that judicial intervention would permit a clarification of the situation from the legal point of view for the purpose of settling the question of the leadership and representation of the organisation concerned. The Government should recognise the leaders designated as legal representatives of the organisation. [See, for example, 172nd Report, Case No. 865 (Ecuador), para. 75.]

&htab;126.&htab;In the present case, the Committee notes that the group supporting the former trade union leadership left the deliberations of the congress of its own free will and did not therefore take part in the elections of the organisation's executive bodies. From the allegations, it does not appear that the public authorities at any time intervened in the electoral process. Furthermore, the complaint brought before the court by the former leadership was rejected. The Committee therefore considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

&htab;127.&htab;As regards the sentencing to terms of imprisonment of three former SYNESCI officials, the Committee notes that the judicial procedures leading to these sentences had been initiated after the new Secretary-General of the organisation had submitted a complaint alleging breach of trust and receipt of stolen goods. Furthermore, the Committee can merely state that from the information provided by the Government, in particular the text of the ruling, it would seem that those concerned benefited from normal judicial proceedings and, in particular, from the right of defence and appeal before the appeal courts.

&htab;128.&htab;As regards the internment of teachers in military camps - including the three sentenced officials after they had served their term - the Committee notes the Government's explanations that the parties concerned had had their deferment of military service lifted and were sent to these camps to serve their legal term of military service. According to the Government, these measures were taken following a defamatory and harmful campaign which they had led against certain personalities and, above all, against the President of the Republic.

&htab;129.&htab;In this respect, the Committee feels bound to recall that the right to express opinions publicly is one of the basic aspects of trade union rights. However, the exercise of trade union activity or the holding of trade union office does not provide immunity as regards the application of ordinary criminal law and the Committee considers in particular that, when making public statements, trade union officials should not exceed the admissible limits of controversy and refrain from extravagances of language. [See, in this respect, 218th Report, Case No. 1102 (Panama), para. 159.] In the present case, the fact nevertheless remains that the measures taken by the authorities to lift the trade unionists' deferment of military service were imposed without, it would seem, any normal judicial or disciplinary proceedings. Whilst noting that the parties concerned have now left the military camps and been reinstated in their teaching posts, the Committee nevertheless feels bound to draw the Government's attention to the importance it attaches to the principle that trade unionists, like all citizens, should benefit from proceedings guaranteeing full independence and impartiality when they are charged with common law or political offences.

&htab;130.&htab;The Committee takes note of the most recent information supplied by the Government to the effect that Mr. Akoun and his colleagues have regained the positions they had held prior to the incidents which led to this case before the Committee, in particular that their salaries have been restored as from July 1988 and the arrears due since the date of their suspension will be paid to them.

&htab;131.&htab;Finally, the Committee notes that an examination has being carried out into the situation of teachers whose payments were suspended, with a view to paying their salaries once again. It expresses the firm hope that the teachers concerned may therefore have their rights fully restored.

&htab;132.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee, given that the complainant did not produce any evidence that the public authorities interfered in the electoral process during the SYNESCI congress, considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

(b) The Committee notes that the trade unionists called up to military camps are now at liberty again and that they have been reinstated in their teaching posts. It nevertheless recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that trade unionists, like all citizens, should benefit from proceedings guaranteeing full independence and impartiality when they are charged with common law or political offences. (c) The Committee notes that an examination has been carried out into the situation of those teachers whose salaries were suspended and that the arrears in their salaries are going to be paid to them. It expresses the hope that the teachers concerned will therefore have their rights fully restored.

&htab;133.&htab;In a communication of 9 February 1988, the World Federation of Industry Workers (WFIW) presented a complaint against the Government of Spain alleging violations of freedom of association. In a subsequent communication of 26 February 1988 this Federation sent additional information in support of its complaint, signed by four trade union sections representing the workers of the Alumina Aluminio enterprise, namely, the trade union sections of the National Inter-Trade Union Association of Galician Workers (INTG), the Trade Union Confederation of Workers' Committees (CCOO), the General Union of Workers (UGT) and the Trade Union of Workers (USO). The Government sent a reply to the allegations of the complainant organisations in a letter of 8 July 1988.

&htab;134.&htab;Spain has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;135.&htab;The World Federation of Industry Workers (WFIW), itself an affiliate of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), explained in its communication of 9 February 1988 that, at the request of its affiliate, the Trade Union of Workers (USO), it was presenting allegations of trade union persecution and serious efforts to undermine freedom of association against the Government of Spain.

&htab;136.&htab;According to the WFIW, the facts are as follows: following the shipwreck of the "Cason", a Panamanian vessel which ran aground on the coast of Galicia causing the death of 25 seamen, while transportingbarrels of toxic and dangerous substances, a wave of panic swept over the region. The inhabitants of entire villages fled; thousands of persons, led by the local authorities, vigorously opposed the transport of these barrels (which continued to surface near the coast of Galicia) for loading and shipment. It was in this climate of panic that a number of barrels containing radioactive substances turned up on the shipping docks of the Alumina Aluminio plant at San Ciprian, near Lugo, in Galicia. Frightened by the presence of these barrels, the workers of this plant abandoned their posts, thus paralysing the enterprise. Their concern was perfectly understandable, especially if one considers the fear and confusion which prevailed at that time.

&htab;137.&htab;The WFIW admits in its communication that the resumption of the aluminium plant's high-temperature furnaces entailed a cost of billions of pesetas. It explains that the Alumina Aluminio metallurgical plant is a semi-public entity which comes under the National Institute for Industry, as well as the Ministry of Industry and Economy and the Ministry of Finances. It denounces the fact that all members of the works council, in other words 23 persons, were dismissed before an opinion was handed down by the labour authorities, especially since these persons were trade unionists who should have enjoyed trade union immunity. Moreover, according to the WFIW, 109 workers were dismissed and restructuring measures threaten a further 600 jobs. The workers who have been unjustly dismissed were accused of sabotage and held to be exclusively responsible for the events which took place at the plant. However, according to the WFIW, it is management which is responsible for the damage and it is therefore unthinkable that the workers, the trade union organisation and its legitimate representatives should suffer from this series of reprisals.

&htab;138.&htab;In a subsequent communication of 26 February 1988, signed by the four trade union sections representing the plant's workers, the WFIW supplies additional information in support of its complaint, stating that the barrels unloaded from the shipwrecked vessel at Finisterre were transported over 200 km by land to be shipped from the Alumina Aluminio complex, whereas they could have been shipped from a number of other ports in closer proximity, such as Corcubion, Cee or Muros.

&htab;139.&htab;The WFIW states that the public authorities had proceeded to evacuate the civilian population along the entire land itinerary of these barrels (although they claimed that the shipment posed no danger). It should be emphasised that the general public was given no information concerning the contents of these barrels. Their arrival at the Alumina Aluminio plant therefore provoked a perfectly understandable concern and commotion, as had been the case wherever the barrels had been stored or moved. Nor had the authorities given any advance notice of the arrival of the barrels (even to the workers' representatives). The WFIW views as extremely serious the bad faith shown by the authorities in supplying the workers of the plant in question with this "gift", especially since the same authorities had ordered and assisted in the evacuation of the entire population living in the area where the ship had run aground (since there had been 25 deaths among the members of its crew).

&htab;140.&htab;The WFIW communication adds that the public authorities were at fault in this matter, inasmuch as the labour authorities failed evento inspect the site and never opposed the decision taken by workers' representatives to recommend the staff's evacuation. According to the WFIW, this recommendation was made in full knowledge of the facts and with full responsibility, in the face of an exceptional situation. The WFIW vigorously condemns the representative of the Spanish authorities who now describes the workers' representatives as reckless revolutionaries (while the matter is still sub judice ); they were acting in full knowledge of their responsibilities when they decided that it was incumbent on them to recommend the plant's evacuation in the same manner as the authorities themselves had ordered the evacuation of the areas through which the dangerous barrels had been transported.

&htab;141.&htab;The outcome of this affair was the massive dismissal of 110 workers and 24 workers' representatives. The WFIW adds that these measures are not consistent with the principles espoused by the International Labour Organisation and Spain, as one of its member States.

&htab;142.&htab;In its letter of 8 July 1988, the Government explains that a distinction should be made between (a) the disciplinary measures adopted by the Alumina Aluminio enterprise against 111 workers and 23 members of the works council, and (b) the suspension of the employment contracts of 574 workers within the framework of an employment restructuring programme authorised by the labour authorities.

&htab;143.&htab;As regards the first point, the Government states that it had nothing to do with the decisions taken; as regards the second point, the competent agencies of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security duly authorised the suspension of the contracts, which had been requested in accordance with proper procedures.

&htab;144.&htab;In connection with the first point concerning the disciplinary measures, the Government states that these measures were taken by the management of the Aluminio Español-Alumina Española Company, which owns the plant, as the employer of the workers in question. According to the Government, the legal status of this enterprise renders it completely autonomous from the National Institute for Industry, and thus from the Government. Therefore, the charges of trade union persecution and serious efforts to undermine freedom of association presented by the complainants against the Government are inaccurate, erroneous and legally unfounded. The Government claims that it has nothing to do with these measures, and that any complaint or charge should be filed against the enterprise which imposed these disciplinary sanctions. According to the Government, any decision on the legality of these measures falls under the jurisdiction of the labour courts (section 55 ff. of the National Charter, and section 97 ff. of the Act concerning labour courts). Moreover, the Government states that the Labour Court has already handed down two decisions concerning the appeals filed by the 111 workers and the members of the works council dismissed by the enterprise. The Government encloses copies of these decisions.

&htab;145.&htab;The Government refutes the allegation that members of the works council were dismissed before the labour authorities had handed down a decision, although as trade unionists they supposedly enjoyed trade union immunity, on the ground that the legislation does not provide that the public authorities have the right to intervene in connection with such measures. It does, however, admit that there are special provisions governing the dismissal of workers' representatives,in the sense that procedures for appeal are guaranteed in the event of disciplinary sanctions, and that the persons in question have priority to remain within the enterprise if their dismissal is considered unfounded. In this case, according to the Government, the disciplinary measures were taken by the employer and were submitted to a judicial procedure which provided both parties with full access to appeal machinery to guarantee the defence of their interests.

&htab;146.&htab;As regards the second point concerning the labour authorities' authorisation of the suspension of the employment contracts of 574 workers, the Government explains that by virtue of section 45(1) of the Workers' Charter, temporary instances of force majeure as well as economic and technological conditions which make the performance of work impossible are valid grounds for the suspension of employment contracts. According to the Government, no one has contested the fact that, following the events of 14 and 15 December 1987, the plant's two electrolysis units were paralysed for a certain time (in theory, for several months), making it impossible for the workers in this branch of the enterprise to perform their work. The Government attaches to its communication copies of resolutions on this matter issued by the Provincial Office of Labour and Social Security of Lugo, and by the Central Labour Office. According to the Government, the paralysis of these electrolysis units is an undisputable fact which was established by the Labour Court of Lugo in its above-mentioned decision.

&htab;147.&htab;Therefore, the suspension of the employment contracts in question was an inevitable consequence which the labour authorities duly authorised; moreover, although the works council in its appeal discussed the fate of workers who had been dismissed and the manner in which the work should be organised while the employment contracts remained suspended, it never challenged the legality of the suspension of the employment contracts, which is at the heart of this matter. Thus, the labour authorities merely authorised the suspension of the employment contracts pursuant to section 47 of the Charter, and neither of the parties has called this decision into question.

&htab;148.&htab;Lastly, concerning the failure of the labour authorities to intervene to bring an end to the paralysis of operations which resulted from the works council's decision, the Government states that this aspect of the case was addressed in sections 12 and 13 of the decision handed down by the Second Labour Court of Lugo on 23 March 1988, concerning the dismissal of members of the works council. The Government attaches copies of these items to its reply.

&htab;149.&htab;In these sections of the court decision in question, the judge states that the parties support diametrically opposed positions in this matter concerning section 19(5) of the Charter, which states that where there is imminent danger of an accident, a decision to stop work may be taken by the competent safety authorities within the undertaking or by all the workers' representatives, in the case of an undertaking engaged in a continuous process. It further provides that any such decision shall be immediately communicated to the enterprise and to the labour authority, which shall, within 24 hours, cancel or confirm the decision taken. The judge considers that the conditions required by this text were not met: it is true that the plaintiffs and the defendants had initially agreed to halt the plant's equipment; that the labour delegate of the province of Galicia attended the meeting between the parties, thus fulfilling the requirement concerningcommunication to the labour authority; and that the labour authority had full knowledge of the events since its delegate was present in the plant and held meetings with the interested parties. However, the judge noted that the first requirement established by the legislation for the implementation of this provision, is the imminent risk of accident. According to the judge, while the risk of accident may have been imminent early on, given the concern which the shipment had caused, it was no longer such when the barrels had been loaded aboard the "Galerno" and when this ship was at a sufficiently safe distance from the plant (some 1,000 or 2,000 nautical miles), and when the enterprise requested the members of the works council to ensure the provision of a minimum service on the grounds that the situation of the electrolysis units was critical and might well lead to the plant's paralysis. The works council failed to take action, although the enterprise merely wanted to avoid the paralysis of 256 electrolysis tanks (which is precisely what happened subsequently). In the opinion of the judge, it was no longer possible to maintain that there was an imminent danger or risk of accident; the works council, however, refused to comply with the enterprise's requests to resume operations.

&htab;150.&htab;In his written opinion, the judge also states that the behaviour of the plantiffs, as from the moment when the "Galerno" sailed from the port of San Ciprian, and at least from the moment when the vessel dropped anchor in the area known as "Las Farralones", was completely unfounded from a legal standpoint since the alleged danger or risk to the physical safety of the workers had disappeared, and the civil protection authorities had issued a certificate of safety for the plant. Moreover, as regards the conditions laid down by the works council on 15 December concerning the payment of hours not worked, and as regards the works council's demand that the management give a signed undertaking to the effect that the vessel would not return to the port, the judge considers that these questions could have been discussed after the workers had returned to their posts, thus avoiding the subsequent damage to the tanks. The judge notes that the employer next urged the works council to have the workers return to their posts immediately in order to save the B unit, as well as the rest of the plant, but that this request went unheeded; since the causes which might have justified the works council's attitude, at least in part, had disappeared, the judge finds it difficult to understand the works council's decision to maintain the work stoppage, unless it was intended exclusively to force the enterprise to pay for the hours not worked.

&htab;151.&htab;The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern measures of dismissal which the complainants consider as discriminatory. These measures have affected 23 workers' representatives of a works council, as well as 111 workers who participated in an interruption of work, and subsequently, 574 workers whose contracts were suspended owing to the paralysis of equipment as a result of the work stoppage in an aluminium plant in December 1987.

&htab;152.&htab;According to the complainants, these dismissals constitute measures of trade union persecution and serious efforts to undermine freedom of association. The Government, on the other hand, draws a distinction between (1) disciplinary measures against striking workers'representatives and workers, taken by the employer and not by the Government, which the persons concerned have the right to challenge andhave indeed appealed, and (2) the suspension of employment contracts on economic grounds which the public authorities have authorised owing to temporary force majeure and economic and technological conditions which prevent the performance of work, inasmuch as the initial paralysis of work led to the shut-down of two electrolysis units, which, in theory, should last for several months.

&htab;153.&htab;The complainants do not contest the shut-down of the electroylsis units, but consider that responsibility for the shut-down lies with the other party.

&htab;154.&htab;The Committee has reviewed the substantial documentation sent by the Government and by the complainants, and in particular the texts of court decisions which uphold the dismissals of members of the works council, but which overturn those of the 111 workers accused of having refused to maintain a minimum service, and the text of a sworn document supplied by the complainants.

&htab;155.&htab;According to the judgement of 23 March 1988, which upheld the dismissal of 23 members of the works council, without compensation or wages, and absolved the employer, the facts are as follows: on the morning of 5 December 1987, the "Cason", a vessel flying the Panamanianflag, ran aground near the fishing port of Finisterre; several membersof the crew were found dead, and several explosions took place on boardthe ship. Subsequently, on 11 December at 9.15 p.m., the General Secretary of the Civil Government of Lugo informed the manager of the Alumina Aluminio SA plant in San Ciprian that a restricted shipment was travelling by lorry to the plant's port for loading onto a ship which would dock at midnight. The lorries failed to arrive at the specified time. However, on the following day, at 8.45 a.m., a convoy of three lorries hauling the containers and barrels rescued from the "Cason" arrived at the plant's main gate and stopped near the beach at Aro, near the site known as Portiño de Moras, by the auxiliary port which had been utilised during the plant's construction. This port is at some distance from the more recently built port which is now in full use. The convoy was escorted by 20 or so police officers.

&htab;156.&htab;On 12 December, around 10.50 a.m., the works council held a meeting with the plant's general manager to find out what the general manager knew about the shipment. The general manager merely stated that he had met the day before with the General Secretary of the Civil Government of Lugo. The works council noted with regret the decision of the Civil Government and stated that it considered that this decision posed a threat to the plant's workers. The works council proposed that the barrels should be evacuated, and the general manager communicated this message to the authorities in Lugo. The authorities then informed the general manager that they would send the provincial head of civil protection to the plant for the purpose of describing the contents of the shipment. In a meeting with the plant's general manager, the works council and the local authorities, the official in question explained that the shipment was to be evacuated through San Ciprian, and that it contained aromatic compound organic substances such as aniline (a benzene derivative used in synthetic colouring agents) and orthocresol (an extract of coal tar). He stated that although these substances were flammable, they could be handled withoutdanger. After a number of statements by several persons attending the meeting, the works council announced that all the workers and their families would hold a meeting at the plant at 4 p.m. The general manager and the authorities received a telex stating that the decision to evacuate the "Cason's" shipment through the port of San Ciprian had provoked a strong reaction among the staff, that there was a risk that the plant's operations might be interrupted, and that owing to the nature of the plant, such an interruption might have serious and irreversible consequences. The telex therefore requested that the decision be reconsidered and pledged the writers' collaboration in the search for solutions to avoid these risks.

&htab;157.&htab;A further meeting between the general manager and the works council was held on the same day, during which the general manager stated that the Governor himself was prepared to come to the plant to furnish explanations. The works council continued to object to the loading of the barrels at the San Ciprian port; although it did not object to the Governor's visit, it stated that if the Governor persisted in his decision to load the barrels at this port, or to have the ship in question enter the port, the workers would leave their posts and block the entrance to the plant, owing to the fact that they did not know what the barrels contained, and that the presence of the barrels had led to the evacuation of the port of Finisterre and given rise to several incidents and a general panic. The plant's general manager agreed to the barricades and authorised workers to use the plant's lorries to transport the materials needed to block the entrances to the plant. The Governor arrived at the plant around 9.30 p.m. and explained the reasons for his decision to the general manager and the works council. The works council explained its opposition to the shipment. No agreement was reached at the meeting. On 13 December the general manager again met with the works council to explain that the shipment did not contain hazardous materials. The works council replied that no worker would load the barrels. This meeting was followed by lengthy discussions between the management and the local authorities. However, on 14 December at 12.30 p.m., the general manager notified the works council in writing that he considered the strike to be illegal and formally requested that the works council designate the staff that would maintain a minimum service. The works council replied in writing at 5 p.m., requesting the immediate evacuation of all workers from the plant. On 15 December, after another enterprise had loaded the barrels on the "Galerno" on 14 December at 9.30 p.m., and after this vessel had left the port and reached the area known as "Las Farallones", some 2,000 nautical miles from the port, the enterprise's general manager at 10 p.m. again requested the members of the works council to guarantee a minimum service so that the paralysis of the plant might be avoided, given the serious situation of the tanks. The works council refused, arguing that the situation of the electrolysis tanks was not critical, and stated that workers were taking care of the tanks and that the management only had to schedule rest-breaks for the supervisory staff who had volunteered to maintain the equipment. At 1.45 a.m., management sent the works council a written order to return to work; the works council refused to accept this communication on the grounds that management had failed to reply to the points which the works council had raised. At 6.30 a.m., and again at 8 a.m., the works council was again requested to set up a minimum service, and calls were sent out to workers at 9 a.m. by radio. At 10 a.m., the A unit automatically shut down when its safety system cut off the intake of gas in order to slow down the cooling of the tanks. News of this shut-down was communicated in writing to the works council and to the public authorities. At 12.45 p.m., 14 of the 18 persons working on the unit were requested to take a break for medical reasons, leaving only four persons who could continue to work for at most one hour or two. At 3 p.m., the B unit was ordered evacuated and its automatic safety system came into action; news of these events was also communicated to the works council and the authorities. From 3 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., a delegate from the labour directorate sought to mediate between the works council and management. Management reported to the delegate that it was necessary for the crew to return to work immediately in order to save the B unit, since the A unit was already hopelessly lost. Management proposed: (1) an immediate return to work; (2) to regard the works council's actions as serious, rather than as very serious; (3) that the sanctions concerning the works council be submitted for arbitration by the labour directorate's delegate; (4) that the dispute concerning the payment for hours not worked be submitted to the general director of the province of Galicia for arbitration. The works council replied through the delegate that it agreed with two of the four proposals, but that it would not accept the loss of wages for hours not worked, and it demanded a written commitment that the ship would not come back to the port. Following further discussions, management announced that the B unit had automatically shut off at 5 p.m., and that the only offer it could still make was that workers immediately return to work to save whatever could be saved. The works council agreed to allow the workers to enter the plant and reconnect the units with a view to starting them up, but management took exception to this proposal, stating that it was impossible to connect either unit without endangering the power plant, and therefore that it was no longer possible to start up the equipment in the normal fashion. At 10 p.m., the electrolysis units were beyond rescue by normal means.

&htab;158.&htab;The complainants contest this version of the facts. They state that as early as 7.30 p.m. on 15 December, the members of the works council had proposed to management to return to work and postpone negotiations; however, management refused to grant them access to the plant. On 16 December, when management allowed certain workers to enter the plant, they noted that the electrolysis tanks were still in good working order, and that the aluminium had not solidified, but was still liquid (which is normal), at a temperature of 735° Celsius in the A unit, and at 760° Celsius in the B unit (the normal operating temperature is 960° Celsius). In this connection, they attach a sworn document dated 17 December 1987, in which a notary attests to their report of the above-mentioned temperatures, adding that he saw the workers introduce a metallic rod into the tanks to show him that the rod would penetrate some 30 or 40 cm into the liquid, although he could not see the direction in which the rod was penetrating.

&htab;159.&htab;Referring to the judgement of the Second Labour Court of Lugo, the Committee considers that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the dismissal of the members of the works committee does not infringe freedom of association.

&htab;160.&htab;As regards the 111 dismissed workers, the Committee notes that in a decision of 9 March 1988, the court invalidated these dismissals and ordered the Aluminio Español-Aluminia Española Company immediately to reinstate the persons concerned and to pay back wages from the time of their dismissal until that of their reinstatement, on the grounds that the enterprise had failed to comply with procedural requirements before dismissal, and that the enterprise had failed to inform workers individually that they would be dismissed. The judge therefore concluded that the enterprise had adopted an arbitrary attitude in singling out 111 of the 240 workers in this plant for dismissal, while all workers had participated in the work stoppage.

&htab;161.&htab;Concerning the dismissal of these 111 workers, the Committee notes with interest that the court cancelled their dismissal and ordered their reinstatement owing to the arbitrary attitude adopted by the enterprise in dismissing certain workers rather than others, and in failing to notify each worker individually that he would be dismissed. Consequently, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

&htab;162.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) Referrring to the judgement of the Second Labour Court of Lugo, the Committee considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the dismissal of the members of the works council does not infringe freedom of association.

(b) The Committee notes with interest that the dismissal of 111 workers was cancelled by a court decision and that the persons concerned have been reinstated in their jobs.

&htab;163.&htab;In a communication dated 10 March 1988, the Danish Computer Workers' Trade Union (known by its Danish acronym, PROSA) presented allegations of violations of trade union rights against the Government of Denmark. It supplied further information on 29 August 1988. The Government supplied its observations on the case in communications dated 14 July and 11 October 1988.

&htab;164.&htab;Denmark 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).

&htab;165.&htab;In its communication of 10 March 1988, PROSA alleges violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 by the adoption by the Danish Parliament on 20 August 1987 of Act No. 542 on the renewal of certain collective agreements for computer workers. According to the Act, a copy of which is supplied, PROSA's collective agreements with the government-owned "Computer Corporation of 1959" and the Ministry of Finance are renewed until 1 June 1989 and 1 April 1989, respectively.

&htab;166.&htab;In addition, the terms and conditions of the average weekly working period and wage adjustment are renewed until 1 April 1991; the Agreement with "Computer Corporation of 1959" concerning the continuation of vital computer services during industrial action is prolonged until 1 June 1989; the original wage indexation scheme is annulled in the renewed agreements; questions concerning the distribution of wage increases during the renewal period shall be determined by a committee set up by the Minister of Finance and, if the committee fails to reach a solution, the Minister shall appoint an arbitrator who is empowered to settle the matter with binding effect; all industrial action shall be discontinued during the operation of the Act.

&htab;167.&htab;The complainant alleges that this Act was introduced in order to discontinue an ongoing lawful dispute between the union and the public sector employers: strike notice had been duly notified in accordance with the law and the Conciliation Board had had time to negotiate; the Board failed to arrive at a solution acceptable to both sides and PROSA decided to exercise its rights and took appropriate industrial action. The complainant explains that it had entered into negotiations with its public and private counterparts at the beginning of 1987 with a view to concluding new two-year agreements, but despite giving considerable concessions, negotiations with "Computer Corporation of 1959" - 100 per cent publicly owned with a government majority on its board of directors - ran into difficulties. PROSA explains that a salary gap between private and public computer workers had grown enormously and it was trying to negotiate an alleviation of this gap with the public employer.

&htab;168.&htab;According to the complainant, it was forced to call a strike on 17 April 1987 in seven different public institutions, such as university administrations and the State Statistics Bureau, involving 125 workers of the 600 covered by the previous collective agreement with the Minister of Finance. The strike at "Computer Corporation of 1959" started on 25 June 1987 with 130 of the 900 workers covered by the collective agreement. PROSA stresses that the two strikes did not affect vital community functions or the security or safety of individuals; the strikes adhered strictly to the terms of the Agreement on the continuation of vital computer services (copy enclosed). On 25 May, "Computer Corporation of 1959" gave notice to lock out 480 workers not covered by the strike notice for June. The lock-out was delayed until 1 July 1987 because PROSA immediately contested its validity. The Arbitration Court passed an award on 29 June 1987 finding that the intended lock-out was legal only for approximately 400 computer workers. PROSA alleges that the lock-out affected certain services which threatened to create considerable inconvenience to the general public and thereby served to aggravate the situation in the public opinion.

&htab;169.&htab;According to the complainant, the Government never tried to enter into real negotiations. For example, when asked in the Parliamentary Committee on the labour market whether the Government had been willing to accept the proposed settlement of the Conciliation Board, the Minister of Labour declined to answer by referring to the secrecy of the conciliation procedure.

&htab;170.&htab;In addition, according to the complainant, it had the right to expand the industrial action as from 25 August 1987 so as to involve computer workers who were carrying out functions covered by the Agreement on continuation of vital computer services. PROSA had, however, already on 12 August 1987 notified the Government that it would not make use of its rights under the Agreement and that no industrial action would take place within the functions covered by the Agreement. This fact was acknowledged by the Minister of Labour duringquestion time in the Parliamentary Committe on the labour market. PROSA alleges that the Government, however, gave Parliament the impression that PROSA would draw upon its rights under the Agreement and used this to push Parliament into legislative intervention. This is clearly demonstrated in the Minister of Labour's presentation of the Bill which was later enacted as the above-mentioned Act No. 542. He stated that "as from 25 August there is, finally, the risk important to society, that the industrial disputes will be extended to fields that are of particular importance for society such as the Parliament, the defence and the police where the crime prevention in that case will be endangered".

&htab;171.&htab;The complainant explains that its industrial action was only intended to affect the computerised registration and payment of tariffs and taxes, but did not affect the payment of salaries, pensions, etc. When questioned in Parliament the Minister for Finance acknowledged, inter alia, that "the computer conflict will not have any consequences for payments between the Government and the municipal authorities" and that "the Government will not lose its legal claims to payments on tariff and VAT".

&htab;172.&htab;It was against this background, states the complainant, that the Government chose to end the lawful strikes by measures in contravention of ILO obligations. The intervention cannot be said to be justified on account of the need for continuation of vital social functions since these were never affected by the strikes. By intervening in the industrial dispute, the Government took away all possibilities for PROSA to improve the salary level by means of lawful labour rights, in spite of the fact that PROSA at all times had agreed to pay due regard to the public interest and to uphold all emergency and other vital functions.

&htab;173.&htab;In addition, the complainant alleges that the forced renewal and prolongation of the collective agreements mentioned above constitute an intervention in the right of collective bargaining. PROSA thus had no real opportunities to exercise its right to negotiate to the full extent possible.

&htab;174.&htab;It points out that the Government has a long record of intervening in the collective bargaining process. This tendency has now turned into an established practice which, it claims, means that the right of free collective bargaining is virtually annulled within large segments of the Danish labour market. It refers to the complaints lodged in 1985 by the Danish Federation of Trade Unions (LO) and the Danish Salaried Employees' and Civil Servants' Confederation (FTF) against the Government of Denmark (Case No. 1338) which gave rise to criticism of the Government's conduct with respect to its international obligations under ratified ILO Conventions. The complainant cites the Committee on Freedom of Association's 243rd Report, which was approved by the Governing Body in March 1986 (paragraph 246):

The Committee hopes that in the future, no similar measures will be taken to interfere with free collective bargaining or to restrict the right of workers to defend their economic and social interests through industrial action.

&htab;175.&htab;According to PROSA, this strongly worded disapproval of the conduct of the Danish Government apparently had no effect on its decision to intervene in the computer workers' dispute, although the facts of the case are similar, and although PROSA had argued with the Minister of Labour that the intervention would be contrary to ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It accordingly requests direct contacts with the social partners and the Government and the opportunity to be heard by the Committee.

&htab;176.&htab;In its communication of 29 August 1988, PROSA - to which the Government had sent a copy of its reply - contests the Government's explanations. In particular, it disagrees with (1) the Government's description of the Act which does not address its compatability or non-compatibility with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and the decision in Case No. 1418 against the Government of Denmark [which recently (254th Report, paras. 200-227, February 1988) criticised the renewal of a collective agreement covering seamen for a four-year period]; (2) the argument concerning the serious consequences of the industrial disputes; (3) the contention that the union had merely promised not to extend the industrial action (PROSA adds that, according to the law, strike notice would have had to be given if it had intended to extend the action, and this was not done so the Government clearly knew that there would be no extension); (4) the contention that the Government was obliged to treat all public sector agreements in the same manner, i.e. the principle in Danish administrative law of "equality".

&htab;177.&htab;In its communication of 14 July 1988, the Government explains generally that in Denmark the collective bargaining process normally takes place every second year as the majority of collective agreements are renewed as of 1 March or 1 April in odd years. The social partners have intentionally aimed at ensuring that collective agreements are concluded more or less at the same time in all sectors, partly in order to obtain a parallel development in the negotiations in the individual occupational fields, and partly to avoid the risk of industrial disputes in connection with the bargaining process in one or another occupational field.

&htab;178.&htab;As regards the background to the present case, the Government states that the renewal of private sector collective agreements in the spring of 1987 took place without industrial disputes on any major scale and, in some of the important fields, the parties even reached agreement without having to resort to the assistance of the public conciliator. It was the social partners themselves who decided that the collective agreements were - as an innovation - concluded for a four-year period in 1987. It was further agreed to reduce the normal weekly working time by two hours per week by steps during this period and that it should be possible to negotiate increases in wage rates in 1989.

&htab;179.&htab;As regards the public sector, the Government explains that inearly 1987 collective agreements were renewed - also for four years - for the majority of public employees following negotiations between the parties without any assistance from the public conciliator and covered about 220,000 public servants, about 25,000 academic staff covered by the joint bargaining unit called the Central Organisation of Academic Staff and about 55,000 employees covered by the joint bargaining unit called CO-Stat. The Government admits that in some minor areas it was not possible to reach agreement on the renewal of the collective agreements by direct negotiations but that agreement was reached following negotiations within the framework of the public conciliation service, in some cases by the adoption of a compromise worked out by the public conciliator. It adds that in these fields, the general trend was for the renewal of the collective agreements on the same conditions as those applying in the other sectors of the labour market.

&htab;180.&htab;As regards the two agreements to which this case relates, the Government gives the following information: the negotiations for renewal of the collective agreement between the Ministry of Finance and PROSA started within the framework of the public conciliation service on 30 March 1987. Industrial action was taken in this field from 17 April. The dispute affected about 130 persons out of the total number of about 600 persons (corresponding to 400 full-time employees) covered by this collective agreement. Eight meetings were held - presided over by the public conciliator - between 30 March and 12 June when the public conciliator declared the negotiations terminated without result. The negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreement between "Computer Corporation of 1959" and PROSA started within the framework of the public conciliation service on 5 June 1987. Six meetings were held - presided over by the public conciliator - until 22 June when the public conciliator declared the negotiations terminated without result. In this field, which covers about 900 full-time employees, a strike started on 25 June 1987 affecting about 150 employees and a lock-out started on 1 July 1987 affecting about 400 employees. The industrial disputes in these two fields continued until the two collective agreements were renewed by the passing of Act No. 542 on 20 August 1987.

&htab;181.&htab;According to the Government, under this Act the two collective agreements were renewed on terms which correspond to the terms agreed upon by other parties in both the public and the private sectors through voluntary bargaining, i.e. renewal for a four-year period, with a possibility of negotiating wage increases in 1989 and a reduction of the normal weekly working time by two hours per week in the course of this period. The Act further provides that the sums fixed in the Act for wage increases should be distributed by a joint board set up in each of the two fields. Questions on which the board could not obtain majority by 1 October 1987 should be settled by an arbitrator appointed by the board, and if the board fails to agree on such appointment, the arbitrator is to be appointed by the public conciliation service.

&htab;182.&htab;It explains that the Government and Parliament found it necessary to terminate these industrial disputes by passing legislation to this effect because their consequences for excise duties and taxes were so serious that the impact on the state finances was unforeseeable; they were also a nuisance to the general public. In the longer term it was to be expected that it would not be possible to restore fully certain electronic data processing systems and the introduction of a planned tax reform would be impeded. In the state sector, especially for the National Statistical Service, continued industrial action would lead to significant deficiencies in the statistical data needed for decisions of the Government and Parliament concerning, for instance, economic policy. Moreover, the Government points out that PROSA had merely indicated that, in spite of the lapse of the Agreement concerning exemption of vital computer functions from strikes, the union would not take industrial action in the fields which had been excluded. However, there was no firm agreement to this effect and therefore, under the law, there was nothing to prevent PROSA from taking industrial action in the fields originally exempted at a later stage.

&htab;183.&htab;As regards the principles in this case, the Government statesthat it is correct that the same rules apply to collective bargaining in the public sector as to collective bargaining in the private sector.This also covers the right to take industrial action if it is not possible to reach agreement concerning the renewal of collective agreements. However, the complainant's impression that the Government always intervenes - and at an early stage - in public sector disputes resulting from failure to reach agreement about renewals is not correct. For example, during negotiations for renewal of the collective agreements between the public employer and the National Union of Watchmen and Security Officers, the strikes - of which due notice had been given - started on 1 April and continued until mid-August when they stopped without any statutory intervention. In the present case, the disputes continued for a long period of time before the Government and Parliament found it necessary to take legislative action to stop them.

&htab;184.&htab;In this connection, the Government stresses that the right ofa union to take collective action to support its claims in a bargainingsituation does not confer any obligation on the employer to meet such claims. The basis - in both the private and public labour markets - must be that the right of an employees' organisation to raise claims, to stick to them and to take industrial action in support of such claims has its counterpart in the employer's right to make offers in a bargaining situation, to stick to them and to use a lock-out in support of them. As regards public employers, a further rule applies: when the public employers have concluded voluntary agreements with employees' organisations representing the majority of the employees in the public sector, they should not accept claims which go much further than these voluntarily concluded agreements, especially when such claims are made by organisations which represent a small - although vital - group of employees. The Government argues that otherwise it could be claimed that if the public employers meet such claims, they not only violate the equality principle of administrative law, but also their obligations in relation to those employees' organisations with whom they have already concluded new collective agreements and who are justified in expecting that the State will not subsequently conclude collective agreements with other employees' organisations which place the latter's members in a significantly better position.

&htab;185.&htab;As regards PROSA's allegations concerning the wage indexationscheme (section 7 of Act No. 542), the Government states that this provision is a consequence of Act No. 297 of 4 June 1986 on the lapse of automatic indexation of remuneration, etc., on the basis of the cost-of-living index. The Committee had been informed about this Act on an earlier occasion. According to the Government, Act No. 542 ensures (sections 1(2) and 2(2)) that employees covered by the Act are subject to the special wage adjustment agreed on in 1987 between the Minister of Finance and the Central Organisation of Public Servants (which in practice covers the whole public sector) under which adjustments may take place as of 1 April 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 on the basis of the development in wages in the private labour market. In this connection, it points out that the special wage adjustment as of 1 April 1988 resulted in a general increase in the wages of public employees corresponding to 1.86 per cent of their earnings.

&htab;186.&htab;Lastly, as concerns the possibility of sending a direct contacts mission to examine the situation, the Government is of the opinion that there is no need for this since sufficient elucidation has been given by the available written documentation.

&htab;187.&htab;In its communication of 11 October 1988, the Government replies to the complainant's criticisms of its initial reply of 14 July1988 (which the Government had copied to PROSA). In particular, it stresses that it objected to the Committee's decision in the previous Case No. 1418 and that it had no influence on the bargaining partners' 1987 agreements (often reached with the assistance of the Public Conciliator) to renew collective agreements for four years. On the question of a potential extension of the disputes, the Government maintains that notice could have been given by the union to do so, and this possibility had necessitated intervention. As regards the complainant's reference to parliamentary questions throwing light on the consequences of the disputes, the Government points out that the questions were put on 17 July and replied to on 24 July, whereas the Bill to which the complaint relates was only introduced on 18 August 1987. On the issue of equality of treatment, the Government admits that the public authorities may conclude different agreements with different groups. It adds that the right of a trade union to take industrial action in support of its claims in a collective bargaining situation does not imply a duty on the part of the employer to comply with such claims. If industrial action is taken to support claims in a central and vital field, so that the society is taken hostage, the situation - in the Government's view - may necessitate legislative intervention, in such a situation it would be natural to use as the basis for such intervention the negotiation results obtained in most other fields in the labour market. It notes, however, that in the other fields where the Public Conciliator proposed a settlement, the basis for legislation has been that very proposed settlement.

&htab;188.&htab;This case involves allegations that the Government's unilateral intervention by legislative measures in order to stop two lawful strikes, the prolongation and renewal of two public sector collective agreements and the imposition of involuntary dispute settlement procedures constitute an infringement of the obligations undertaken by the Government of Denmark in ratifying Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;189.&htab;The Committee takes note of the detailed information providedby both the complainant and the Government as to the background of the adoption, on 20 August 1987, of Act No. 542 and notes that the facts ofthis case are not in dispute. It observes from the translation of the Act supplied by the complainant that the PROSA/"Computer Corporation of 1959" agreement is renewed (section 1) until 1 June 1989 with certain provisions on working hours and adjustment clauses extended until 1 June 1991; likewise, the PROSA/Ministry of Finance agreement is renewed (section 2) until 1 April 1989 with similar provisions extended to 1 April 1991, including the special wage regulation agreed upon; for each of the two agreement areas a committee shall be set up (section 8) having equal representation of the parties to determine the partition of certain wage increases over the two-year renewal periods and failing agreement, the committee (not the Minister of Finance as alleged) or the Conciliation Board shall appoint an arbitrator; section 9 terminates work stoppages started in relation to the agreements.

&htab;190.&htab;The Committee notes that there is disagreement, however, as to the necessity for government action. For example, the complainant alleges that the strikes of April and June 1987 only affected part of the workforce in the undertakings involved and did not affect vital services. The Government justifies its action because of the unforeseeable impact on state taxes, the nuisance to the general publicand the long-term problems for certain electronic data processing systems and statistical data collection, as well as the potential spread of the strikes to vital services listed in a formal agreement as being exempt from computer employees' industrial action, such as defence work and crime prevention.

&htab;191.&htab;Another area of disagreement concerns the conduct of negotiations: on the one hand, the complainant describes the difficulties in bargaining, despite the attempts to find a mutually agreeable settlement by the conciliation service, including the lock-out which only led to an aggravation of the situation. The Government, on the other hand, stresses the number of meetings held in an attempt to reach agreement and the fact that, in most other public sectors, agreements had been reached voluntarily or with conciliation help for four-year renewals and that it had an obligation not to give in to more favourable claims proposed by one group after it had signed agreements with other public employees' organisations.

&htab;192.&htab;On the issue of the ban on industrial action, the Committee points out, as it has in past cases, that the right to strike may be restricted or even prohibited in the civil service (i.e. where public servants act as agents of the public authority) or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population [see, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 1140 (Colombia), para. 144]. Under this criterion, the Committee is of the opinion that the computer workers who interrupted services for the collection of excise duties and taxes from 17 April and 25 June 1987, respectively, until 20 August (when the Act in question was passed) were not civil servants or engaged in essential services. The unilateral termination of their strikes was therefore in contravention of the principles on freedom of association.

&htab;193.&htab;The second aspect of this complaint centres on the allegation that Act No. 542 is yet another example of government intervention in voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee observes - as does the complainant - that this is not the first time in recent years that it has been called on to examine the Danish Government's intervention through legislation in both private and public sector collective bargaining processes. Although the pieces of legislation at issue in the earlier cases [see 243rd Report, Case No. 1338, paras. 209 to 247, approved by the Governing Body in March 1986, followed up in the 1987 observation on Denmark's observance of Convention No. 98 made by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations; and 254th Report, Case No. 1418, paras. 200 to 227, approved in February-March 1988, also referred to the Committee of Experts] are not called into question here, the legislation in Case No. 1338 contained very similar provisions. The Committee is thereforebound to refer the Government to the same fundamental principles upon which it based its criticism of the Government's earlier intervention.These are that a basic aspect of freedom of association is the right of workers' organisations to negotiate wages and conditions of employment freely with employers and their organisations, and that any restriction on the free fixing of wage rates should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, without exceedinga reasonable period; such restrictions should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect the living standards of the workers.

&htab;194.&htab;In addition, the Committee recalls that Article 6 of Convention No. 98 permits the exclusion from this basic right to bargain collectively of "public servants engaged in the administration of the State", a term which the ILO supervisory bodies have looked at in the light of the distinction to be drawn between civil servants employed in various capacities in government ministries or comparable bodies and other persons employed by the Government, by public undertakings or by independent public organisations [see, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 1267 (Papua New Guinea), para. 596.]. In this case, therefore, the Committee considers that the Danish Computer Workers' Trade Union (PROSA) legitimately had enjoyed the right to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment of computer workers employed in the areas in question in the present case by means of collective agreements until Act No. 542 put an end to all possibility of negotiations for the life of the extended agreements.

&htab;195.&htab;Given the facts of the present case, it appears to the Committee, for the following reasons, that the Government's intervention went beyond the criteria set out in the preceding paragraphs concerning acceptable restrictions on the voluntary fixing of conditions of employment. The method used was not exceptional especially in view of the fact that the Government's earlier two-year statutory renewal of collective agreements (between April 1985 and April 1987) has already been criticised in a past case by both the Committee of Experts and this Committee. The Committee also notes that no evidence was put forward to show that the Danish economy as a whole or the administrative sectors serviced by computer workers were faced with an emergency situation such as to justify intervention in voluntary collective bargaining; in fact, the Government only put forward financial justifications and equality of treatment arguments.

&htab;196.&htab;Finally, as regards the statutory imposition of involuntary disputes settlement procedures, the Committee notes that there has traditionally been a "peace obligation" during the life of collective agreements in the Danish industrial relations system. In addition, it observes that Act No. 542 sets up a joint committee for each of the two areas involved, to determine certain items open to discussion during the extended periods for the two agreements, so that there is the opportunity for the complainant to share in the practical implementation of the new agreements. Likewise, the Act (section 10) provides that "questions in relation to the interpretation or violation of the renewed agreements shall be settled in accordance with the usualindustrial relations rules for the area" concerned. The Committee considers that the Act therefore provides adequate and impartial disputes settlement procedure to safeguard the interests of the workerswho are obliged to maintain industrial peace under the legislation.

&htab;197.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee considers that the statutory renewal and extension of collective agreements covering computer workers which put an end to their strikes in certain public institutions (such as university administrations and the National Statistics Bureau) infringed the ILO principles on the right to strike.

(b) The Committee considers that this legislative intervention also infringed the principle of free collective bargaining with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements set out in Article 4 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Denmark.

(c) The Committee draws this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in the context of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;198.&htab;The complaints are contained in a joint communication from the General Confederation of Workers of Peru and the United Textile Front dated 28 March 1988. The Government replied in a communication dated 26 September 1988.

&htab;199.&htab;Peru 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).

&htab;200.&htab;The General Confederation of Workers of Peru (CGTP) and the United Textile Front allege in their communication of 28 March 1988 that certain provisions in the law seriously restrict collective bargaining between workers and employers in the textile industry. Section 7 of Supreme Decree No. 5 D.T. of 17 August 1956, for example, reads: "The negotiation of wage claims in the textile industry is henceforth suspended except in so far as they are justified by a fundamental change in the system of work". Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T. of 13 December 1960 subsequently added to that provision the following criteria governing the exception provided for therein, by virtue of which there are only three circumstances in which collective bargaining on wages is possible:

(a) when the place of work concerned has not concluded a collective agreement or has not settled a collective wage demand;

(b) when the workers are employed in places of work set up after 17 August 1956, in so far as the corresponding wage scales have not been determined by agreement or by judicial or administrative award;

(c) when after 17 August 1956 new machinery is installed, existing machinery is modernised or working conditions are introduced that make greater demands on the workers or give them more responsibility, without the corresponding wage scales being fixed. There is therefore no possibility of negotiating new collective agreements embodying wage increases other than in the above circumstances. In practice, the legislation in force requires trade unions to submit their demands to their employers before collective bargaining can begin, with a copy to the Ministry of Labour which then initiates the collective bargaining procedure so that the direct negotiations stage can start. In the case of collective bargaining for the textile industry, the labour authority has exceeded its powers and has engaged in undue interference in direct negotiations by concurring with the employers' view that negotiations should not be allowed to begin until it has been established that the demands conform to Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T. referred to above.

&htab;201.&htab;The complainant organisations cite a number of examples to illustrate the attitude adopted by the authorities for more than ten years: - Subdirectorial Ruling No. 162-75-911000 of 16 December 1975, concerning the collective bargaining engaged in by the "Remo" Textile Workers' Union, denies the possibility of negotiating either conditions of employment and work or wages on the grounds that such negotiations are "inappropriate in so far as they do not conform to any of the exceptions set out in Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T. of 13 December 1960";

- Divisional Decision No. 04-84-2DV-NEC of 20 January 1984, concerning the negotiations which the Union of Spinners and Weavers of Manufacturas Tres Ele S.A. were seeking to initiate, recalls that the presentation of wage claims in the textile industry is prohibited in so far as wages are automatically readjusted;

- Subdirectorial Decision No. 116-87-2SD-NEC of 14 October 1987 declared a list of workers' demands to be irreceivable on the grounds that, although new machinery had indeed been installed and the demands therefore came within the terms of Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T., the machinery had been purchased and installed after the presentation of the demands; and the enterprise's refusal to negotiate the demands was therefore justified, though the claimants were entitled to submit a new list of demands with respect to the new machinery. In practice, this has meant that the trade union has wasted a year and has had to initiate proceedings again which, as in the previous instance, have been formally rejected by the enterprise.

&htab;202.&htab;The complainant organisations add that, in addition to the provisions referred to, the restrictions on wage claims are based on section 5 of the Supreme Decree of 29 March 1945 which stipulates that "no wage claims related to cost-of-living increases shall in future be admitted", following the introduction of a system of automatic readjustment of remuneration under an agreement which, as will be seen below, has been suspended unilaterally by the Government yet is still supposed to apply to collective demands.

&htab;203.&htab;According to the complainants, this restriction which initially concerned only conditions of remuneration was subsequently extended, in the case of works unions, to working conditions. Thus, atfirst the restriction was taken as referring solely to wages, and workscommittees were able to negotiate conditions of work and employment. Subsequently, when collective bargaining was introduced at the federal level, this right was reserved exclusively for the national federation and was denied to the works unions, which are the most active part of the country's trade union movement. Subdirectorial Decision No. 116-87-2SD-NEC accordingly states that, "by virtue of the constant and repeated rulings of the labour administration, ... demands relating to working conditions submitted by employees in the textile industry ... shall be negotiated at the level of the federal trade union". Conversely, the Textile Federation is recognised as being empowered to negotiate only working conditions and not wages. However, the complainants point out that Peruvian legislation contains no provision for denying such a right, which should be left entirely to the discretion of the social partners. Hence the paradoxical situation in which a large number of textile unions are unable to negotiate wage conditions because they do not meet the requirements of Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T. and are unable to negotiate working conditions because the labour authorities have decided that such negotiations are possible only at the sectoral level.

&htab;204.&htab;The complainants allege further that in 1976 the existing systems of automatic wage readjustment were suspended by Legislative Decree No. 21531 (section 10) for a specified period of time which was successively extended. Previously, workers in the textile industry had benefited from an automatic wage readjustment by virtue of a collective agreement concluded on 21 March 1945 and legalised by the Supreme Decree of 29 March 1945. In 1981 the Peruvian Government endeavoured to correct the injustice by reintroducing an automatic wage readjustment scheme devised by the Ministry of Labour itself, although the new scheme is not the same as that of the 1945 collective agreement, which has been suspended indefinitely. The new readjustmentscheme was implemented by means of the creation by Ministerial Ruling No. 079-81-TR of "standard scales" which were regularly updated and which have now been replaced by "conversion scales" introduced by Ministerial Ruling No. 100-87-TR. As indicated in its preamble, the latter originated in a decision to devise a wage system for the textileindustry that would entail the disappearance of the standard scales so as to bring them in line with the scope and objectives of the Supreme Decree of 29 March 1945. However, none of the formulas devised so far by the Peruvian Government corresponds to what the workers and employers voluntarily agreed upon. Although the labour authority is quite aware that the indefinite suspension of the 1945 collective agreement - merely because it wishes to help employers in the textile industry by introducing a system that sets wages lower than they shouldbe under the agreement - is completely arbitrary, it persists in doing so. It no longer has the excuse initially advanced that the country was going through an industrial recession, as this is now not the case in the textile industry. Nor is there any possible justification for prolonging indefinitely - in one way or another - a 12-year-old measure which by its very nature was supposed to be exceptional. In a communication to the Minister of Labour and Social Advancement dated 2 October 1987 the Peruvian Parliament itself informed the executive thatthe Chamber of Deputies had decided to draw its attention to this stateof affairs "so that it might take the necessary steps to enforce the collective labour agreement of 21 March 1945, legalised by the Supreme Decree of 29 March of the same year, which provides for the automatic readjustment of remuneration in the textile sector, the latter being mandatory for the parties concerned in accordance with article 54 of the Constitution". This request was ignored by the Government which maintained its unilateral decision to suspend the agreement.

&htab;205.&htab;Finally, the complainant organisations state that all the claims presented by the Textile Federation since 1981 in its negotiations by branch of industry at the national level have been dealt with unilaterally by the Ministry of Labour itself, since the employers have not the slightest interest in reaching any kind of agreement as it is much easier for them to wait for the Ministry (where they have a powerful lobby) to come up with a solution which is bound to be in their favour. This, they allege, is a patently disloyal attitude that reflects the bad faith with which they approach negotiations in the sector.

&htab;206.&htab;In its communication dated 26 September 1988, the Government states that, in accordance with the collective agreement concluded on 21 March 1945 and the provisions of the Supreme Decree of 29 March of the same year, all textile workers throughout the country benefit from the automatic monthly readjustment of their remuneration based on the cost of living. In other words, this is the option that has been chosen to readjust wages instead of periodically submitting a list of demands. Given the existence of this automatic adjustment scheme, Supreme Decree No. 5 D.T. of 17 August 1956 announced the suspension of negotiations over wage demands in the textile industry except in so far as the system of work is changed. Supreme Decree No. 12 of 13 December 1960 subsequently amended section 7 of that Decree by adding that, without prejudice to the automatic readjustment of remuneration based on the cost of living, wage increases may be requested in the following specific cases:

(a) when the place of work concerned has not concluded a collective agreement or has not settled a collective wage demand;

(b) when the workers are employed in places of work set up after 17 August 1956, in so far as the corresponding wage scales have not been determined by agreement or by judicial or administrative award; (c) when after 17 August 1956 new machinery is installed, existing machinery is modernised or working conditions are introduced that make greater demands on the workers or give them more responsibility, without the corresponding wage scale being fixed.

&htab;207.&htab;The Government adds that article 54 of the Constitution of Peru promulgated by the Constituent Assembly in 1979 provides that "collective labour agreements between workers and employers have force of law". Thus, in so far as a system of automatic readjustment of remuneration based on the cost of living was established for textile workers pursuant to the 1945 collective agreement, this is the system that has been chosen to maintain the level of real incomes and to avoid a decline in purchasing power. Consequently, the Government cannot accept the position of the complainant confederations that it should be possible at the same time to submit wage claims, since this would mean that there would simultaneously be two methods or channels for achieving the same objective, whereas they are mutually exclusive. As indicated in the previous paragraph, however, textile workers are entitled to negotiate wage increases collectively at the level of each workplace in the exceptional circumstances set out in Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T. of 13 December 1960, in which case the demands are taken up and discussed once the existence of such exceptional circumstances has been established by expert appraisal.

&htab;208.&htab;The Government concludes by stating that the State has not limited or restricted collective bargaining for textile workers since the parties concerned opted freely for the system in force, and that only they can decide to abandon the automatic readjustment of wages based on the cost of living and, instead, discuss wage increases on an annual basis. In any case, the two systems cannot exist side by side. At present, collective bargaining applies only to the exceptional circumstances set out in the Supreme Decree referred to above. The textile workers benefiting from the automatic readjustment of their remuneration are in fact in a privileged position compared to other workers, who regularly demand to be allowed to benefit from the same system as the textile workers. Since the latter are already in this advantageous position, they have the non-exclusive second option of having their wages increased by virtue of the exceptions to the legal norm already referred to. They are now claiming as a third option to be able to submit freely an annual list of demands to have their income readjusted.

&htab;209.&htab;As to the alleged unilateral imposition of the level at which negotiations can take place, the complainant organisations claim that the Government does not allow wage increases to be discussed at the level of the federation but only at the level of each workplace. The Government states that, as it has already pointed out, the existence of a system of automatic readjustment of remuneration based on the cost of living means that wage claims cannot as a general rule be submitted either by a trade union or by a federation as there would then be two systems of readjustment operating side by side. A special provision exists, however, whereby collective claims can be put forward in so far as they relate to the exceptional circumstances set out in Supreme Decree No. 12 D.T. of 13 December 1960. Since these exceptional circumstances arise in specific workplaces, then it is for the workers concerned in each case to request an increase in the wage scale and not for the higher-level trade union organisation, since the particular circumstances do not affect all the workers in the textile industry or national federation. The situation is quite different with grievances concerning conditions of work which do concern all textile workers at the national level, and these are submitted by the National Federation of Textile Workers of Peru. In other words, there has been no unilateral decision but merely the implementation of a system for which the workers and employers themselves opted.

&htab;210.&htab;As regards the alleged suspension of the collective agreements by the Government between 1976 and 1981 (it was during this period that the agreement of 21 March 1945 concerning the automatic readjustment of remuneration in accordance with the increase in the cost of living was suspended), the Government stresses that the suspensions occurred while the country was under military rule and during part of the presidency of Fernando Belaunde Terry and not under the Government of President Alan García Pérez. President García Pérez has not only fully enforced the system of automatic readjustment of remuneration but, in addition, has adopted the following concrete measures in favour of the textile workers:

- Ministerial Ruling No. 451-86-TR of 17 September 1986 formally established that as from 1 May 1986 the standard scale for the cost of living in the textile industry would be updated each month on the basis of the general consumer price index for the Province of Lima. The Ruling also provided for the creation of a tripartite committee to look into the standardisation of the system of wages in the textile industry so as gradually to do away with the so-called "standard scales", which tended to distort the proper operation of the automatic readjustment system, and to bring that system into line with the scope and objectives of the 1945 agreement.

- Ministerial Ruling No. 471-86-TR of 3 October 1986 determined that, while the tripartite technical committee was engaged in this task, the textile workers of the entire country should be granted a 6 per cent increase as from 1 May 1986 over and above the standard scale for the cost of living in the textile industry for the previous month, irrespective of the automatic monthly cost-of-living increase; in this way the Government not only applied the existing system but actually increased the real income of the workers concerned.

- Ministerial Ruling No. 100-87-TR of 26 March 1987, which was issued after the tripartite technical committee had submitted its report, contained a number of important decisions, namely:

&htab;(a) the standard scales for the cost of living in the textile industry which had listed over 3,000 items up to 31 December 1986 ceased to exist as from 1 January 1987 (this decision thus went beyond the intention expressed in Ministerial Ruling No. 471-86-TR that their elimination should be "gradual");

&htab;(b) the wage rates expressed in "soles" at 1945 prices which were applicable on 31 December 1986, whether relating to fixed or to variable remuneration, were to be brought up to date as from 1 January 1987 and converted into "intis" units, based in each case on the cost of living in the textile industry corresponding to the basic wage for each post and job in each workplace;

&htab;(c) the amounts reached by the foregoing method of calculation were to be increased by a further 6 per cent, plus a fixed sum of I/.17 per day.

&htab;211.&htab;The Government observed that it is abundantly clear that it has adopted a series of decisions which, far from entailing the suspension of the system of automatic adjustment of wages for textile workers, are designed to enforce that system, to do away with features that distorted its proper application and, by making allowance for morethan the rate of inflation and thereby improving on the system itself, to raise the real income of the workers by the payment of amounts over and above those corresponding to the automatic readjustment of their wages. The Government is somewhat surprised that, during the period when the system of automatic readjustment really was suspended, the General Confederation of Workers of Peru never lodged a complaint and that it should do so now when the system is once again fully operational and when very important decisions have been taken to improve it. The explanation is possibly that the CGTP has not examinedthe problem in sufficient detail, especially as it is a very complex matter and concerns a special system that calls for expert analysis.

&htab;212.&htab;The Committee observes that, in answer to the allegation that Decree No. 5 of 1956 and No. 12 of 1960 prohibit wage negotiationsin the textile sector at the level of the branch of activity and permitsuch negotiation in textile enterprises only in three exceptional sets of circumstances whose common denominator is the non-fixing of the relevant wages, the Government states that the 1945 collective agreement, which is still applicable, established a system of automaticreadjustment of remuneration for textile workers based on the cost of living which places these workers in a privileged position compared to all other workers, but excludes the possibility of their submitting anywage claims. Although the Committee notes that in the 1945 collective agreement the signatories stipulated that "there shall in future be no wage claims with respect to increases in the cost of living", it wishes to point out that, although the clause specifically excludes wage claims "with respect to increases in the cost of living", it does not exclude the possibility of claims being submitted on other grounds such as the level of productivity and profits in the textile sector.

&htab;213.&htab;The Committee further considers that the legislative provisions prohibiting the negotiation of wage increases beyond the level of the increase in the cost of living are contrary to the principle of voluntary collective bargaining embodied in Convention No. 98. Such a limitation would be admissible only if it remained within the context of an economic stabilisation policy, and even then only as an exceptional measure restricted to what is absolutely necessary and limited to a reasonable period of time.

&htab;214.&htab;With regard to the alleged suspension of the provisions of the 1945 collective agreement concerning the automatic readjustment of remuneration and their replacement initially by a system of "standard scales" and currently by a system of "conversion scales" pursuant to a ministerial ruling of 1987, the Committee notes the Government's claim not only that it is respecting the automatic readjustment system in full, but also that it has adopted a series of measures in favour of textile workers that go further than that system in terms of real income. Although it does not have sufficient facts at its disposal to determine which automatic readjustment system (that provided for in the 1945 collective agreement or that which currently applies) is more advantageous to the workers, the Committee must draw attention to the fact that the present system was introduced by ministerial rulings, that it does not correspond to what was agreed upon in the 1945 collective agreement and that it is objected to by the complainant organisations in this present case. The Committee therefore calls on the Government to take, as soon as possible, the necessary steps to ensure that the system of automatic readjustment of remuneration provided for in the 1945 collective agreement, which is still in force, is fully applied.

&htab;215.&htab;As to the allegation that, according to the case law of the administrative labour authority, the negotiation of working conditions other than wages is prohibited at the level of the enterprise in the textile industry, the Committee notes the Government's assertion that the National Federation of Textile Workers of Peru is able to submit claims concerning conditions of work - which cover all textile workers at the national level - not by virtue of a unilateral decision of the Government but because it is in keeping with a system for which the workers and employers themselves opted.

&htab;216.&htab;Drawing attention to the contradiction between the explanations given by the complainants and by the Government regarding the impossibility of negotiating working conditions other than wages at the level of the enterprise, the Committee emphasises that, according to the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining embodied in Article 4 of Convention No. 98, the determination of the bargaining level is essentially a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties [see 202nd Report, Case No. 915 (Spain), para. 53] and that, consequently, the level of negotiation should not be imposed by law, by decision of the administrative authority or by the case law of the administrative labour authority.

&htab;217.&htab;Finally, the Committee observes that the Government has not replied to the allegation that since 1981 all claims presented at the national level by the Textile Federation have been settled unilaterallyby the Ministry of Labour since the employers have not the slightest interest in reaching any kind of agreement through direct negotiations.In this connection, the Committee recalls that on another occasion [see 248th Report, Case No. 1367 (Peru), para. 169] it reached the conclusion that section 13 of Supreme Decree No. 009-86-TR establishes unilaterally a system of compulsory arbitration by the administrative authority following the failure of the negotiation and conciliation stages, which in practice prevents the declaration or continuation of a strike. The Committee reiterates, as it did on that occasion, that provisions which establish that failing agreement between the parties the points at issue in collective bargaining must be settled by arbitration by the labour authorities do not conform to the principle of voluntary negotiation contained in Article 4 of Convention No. 98 [see 116th Report, Case No. 541 (Argentina), para. 72].

&htab;218.&htab;In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) With reference to Decrees No. 5 of 1956 and No. 12 of 1960 which prohibit in principle the negotiation of wage increases in the textile sector beyond the level of the increase in the cost of living, the Committee recalls that such a limitation would be admissible only if it remained within the context of an economic stabilisation policy, and even then only as an exceptional measure restricted to what is absolutely necessary and limited to a reasonable period of time. The Committee calls on the Government to take, as soon as possible, the necessary steps to ensure that in the textile industry the system of automatic readjustment of remuneration provided for in the 1945 collective agreement, which is still in force, is fully applied.

(b) The Committee stresses that the determination of the bargaining level is essentially a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties and that the level of negotiations should not be imposed by law, by administrative decision or by the case law of the administrative labour authority.

(c) Bearing in mind that the system of compulsory arbitration established unilaterally by Supreme Decree No. 009-86-TR does not conform to the principle of voluntary negotiation embodied in Article 4 of Convention No. 98, the Committee once again requests the Government to take steps to have the Decree amended.

(d) The Committee draws this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.

&htab;219.&htab;The Committee of Trade Union Organisations (CTUO) presented a complaint of violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 13 August 1987. On 4 October 1987 the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) communicated its support of the complaint. The Governmentsupplied certain comments on the complaint in communications dated 9 February and 30 September 1988.

&htab;220.&htab;The United States has not ratified the Right of Association (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 84), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;221.&htab;In its letter of 13 August 1987, the CTUO states that it is a united body of more than 50 unions with different trade union and political views whose aim is to fulfil certain tasks and handle common problems. It alleges that from newspaper articles (copies of which are attached) it is clear that the Government - through the Division of Police Intelligence - has prepared and is maintaining lists of, and files on, both individuals and unions which are described therein as "Separatists and Subversives". According to the complainant union, about 40 trade union leaders, four workers' organisations, the Labour Lobbyist, four CTUO officials and 20 union lawyers have been included in these lists.

&htab;222.&htab;This description would not be important, states the CTUO, if it were only used for internal analysis or as political reference material for the Government; however, it has been and is being used to discriminate and unjustly and unconstitutionally influence the ability to get and keep jobs and other benefits that could be gained from employment. It alleges that in the case of trade union organisations, this description represents them as being outside the law, leading to malicious and tendentious inquiries and systematic persecution and coercion. All this violates the freedom of association that the ILO has enshrined in its Conventions.

&htab;223.&htab;The complainant explains that many individuals and organisations in Puerto Rico have been claiming the right they have to self-determination in face of the prevailing colonial situation. This has given rise to activities and efforts in international bodies with a view to correcting the situation. The Government of the United States and the Government of Puerto Rico call these activities subversive, despite the fact that the Constitutions of both countries recognise the legitimate right to them and prohibit the above-mentioneddiscriminatory practices. The complainant alleges that as a result of the repressive apparatus of the United States Government, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Intelligence Division of the Puerto Rico Police, an operation has developed involving many types of repression. These range from the infiltration of unions by secret police agents to the carrying out of sabotage and attributing it to unions, as well as the kidnapping and killing of trade union leaders and/or activists.

&htab;224.&htab;According to the CTUO, this persecution against trade unionism and the eagerness to describe as criminal the workers' lawful actions has escalated to such an extent that recently it became known that there is a so-called "worker-employer unit" in the Puerto Rico police whose purpose - as admitted by its members during public hearings before the Puerto Rico Civil Liberties Commission - is to prosecute and control the activities of the trade union movement.

&htab;225.&htab;In its letter of 9 February 1988, the Government states that the authorities of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have supplied the following initial comments: a civil lawsuit is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth concerning the lists of separatists and subversives mentioned in the ILO case, thus observations cannot be transmitted while the case is sub judice . The lists in question have been sealed, by Supreme Court order, until such time as the lawsuit is resolved and therefore they are not open to public inspection.

&htab;226.&htab;In its communication of 30 September 1988, the Government supplies information on the pending Supreme Court case. It was initiated by, on the one hand, a member of the Puerto Rican Parliament (the Hon. David Noriega Rodríguez) who requested an order to the Police Superintendent of Puerto Rico to take measures to seal certain files on individuals and organisations in the possession of the police and which allegedly were created because of the political beliefs of those concerned. On the other hand, a citizen (Graciani Miranda Marchand) requested an order declaring unconstitutional the practice of maintaining lists and files on individuals who are not undergoing bona fide criminal investigation and the handing over of all documents concerning him. The Government of the Commonwealth is the defendant in both actions which were joined on 20 July 1987.

&htab;227.&htab;According to the communication, the Commonwealth admitted theunconstitutionality of such practices and the Governor of Puerto Rico, on 21 July 1987, issued Executive Order No. 4920-A setting up a councilto protect the citizens' right to privacy with a view to preventing in the future the collection and compilation of such information based purely on political reasons and establishing a procedure for returning to the individuals or groups concerned the information obtained about them. From a copy of the Order supplied by the Government, it appears that the council shall be a permanent body chaired by the Secretary of Justice and consisting of the Superintendent of Police and three retired Supreme Court judges (section 1). The council shall be responsible for, among other things, (a) establishing specific guidelines to be followed in the internal security programme so as to meet the aims of the council; (b) examining the files held by the police and the Special Investigations Bureau of the Department of Justice and, where there is a violation of the guidelines, notifying the persons concerned and offering them the opportunity to see their file, which can eventually lead to the final disposal of the offending file; and (c) establishing adequate co-ordination with whichever federal agencies could provide means to strengthen the aims of the programme such as the secret service, the coast guard, the customs service and the Federal Bureau of Investigations. As a consequence of this Order, the file concerning Mr. Miranda Marchand was ordered to be handed over to the council which now had initial jurisdiction in such matters.

&htab;228.&htab;On 31 July 1987 the High Court of Puerto Rico handed down its partial decision on the case (which was finalised on 14 September 1987), clarifying four issues: (1) that the practice of compiling files on individuals and organisations exclusively by reason of their political and ideological beliefs without there being any real proof to link the persons to the commission or attempted commission of crimes is illegal and unconstitutional; (2) that the State must return to Mr. Miranda Marchand and to the various persons concerned, including groups of persons not parties to this case, every document in the possession of the police found in files opened solely on the basis of the political and ideological beliefs of these other persons; (3) that any provisions in Executive Order No. 4920-A in conflict with this decision shall be repealed; and (4) that the set of rules laid down in the judgement be used for the handing over of the files in question to the persons concerned not involved in the case. In the meantime the list of named persons and organisations should be handed in to the court in a sealed envelope. On 14 October 1987, the State appealed this decision in so far as it extended to third persons foreign to the case, and challenged the procedure drawn up concerning them and the declaration of partial unconstitutionality of the Executive Order. On 5 November 1987, the Supreme Court handed down a resolution admitting the appeal and on 10 December - at the appellant's request for an injunction - it ordered the suspension of the measures contained in the judgement of the High Court. Copies of all these documents are supplied by the Government.

&htab;229.&htab;The Government goes on to describe the series of legal procedures attempted by the Hon. Noriega Rodríguez which led the Supreme Court, on 10 February 1988, to reconsider its earlier decision of 10 December. The Supreme Court in effect ordered the authorities of the Commonwealth to take measures to protect the files in question and to hand over to the High Court a sealed envelope containing the lists of persons and organisations mentioned in the police files in question. This was done on 25 February 1988; it appears that in fact four sealed boxes containing a summary 4,570 pages long of the persons and organisations involved were deposited. The State presented its final pleadings before the Supreme Court on 11 March 1988 and the case is awaiting a final decision.

&htab;230.&htab;The Committee notes that this case concerns serious allegations that the police in Puerto Rico are preparing and maintaining lists concerning unionists and workers' organisations, not for use in any criminal investigation, but for use in anti-union discriminatory practices. The complainant gives no further details on these practices which allegedly include impossibility of listed unionists to get and keep jobs, systematic persecution, as well as kidnapping and killing of trade union leaders and activists, nor has it produced any evidence to show that the lists were in fact used against unionists. The Committee is aware, however, from the voluminous documentation supplied by the Government that the existence of such illegal police lists and files was admitted by the public authorities, and that there are thousands of names on the lists.

&htab;231.&htab;The Committee also notes that the Government's reply centres on a Puerto Rican High Court case, decided partially on 31 July and finally on 14 September 1987 and appealed against by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on 14 October 1987. Final pleadings were presented to the Supreme Court in this appeal in March 1988 and its decision is awaited.

&htab;232.&htab;While recognising that the Supreme Court's decision will be useful in adding extra detail to this case, the Committee observes fromthe documents supplied that the appeal does not concern the central issue of the High Court case, namely its declaration that the police practice of gathering information and compiling lists and files when there is no criminal investigation is illegal and unconstitutional. The appeal, in fact, challenges the lower court's attempt to regulate the handing over of the files in question even to persons not involved in the original petition - which, it should be pointed out, was not a class action on behalf of all the individuals and organisations listed in the police files - and its partial nullification of the Executive Order which had been issued by the Governor. (It appears that only section 3(b) was purportedly repealed by the High Court decision.) Stated in other words, the appeal attacks the remedies - and the way they were delivered using the separation of powers argument - put forward by the lower court to protect all victims of the police department's illegal and unconstitutional practices, not the declaration of illegality itself.

&htab;233.&htab;The Committee has reviewed the substantial documentation sent by the Government and by the complainant, and in particular the texts of the various court decisions and documents which uphold the illegality of the police practices complained of by the CTUO in this case, but which are pending a Supreme Court decision as to how to dispose of the offending files and related material. In such circumstances the Committee notes with interest the condemnation of the police practices in question. In the past it has stated that all practices involving the "blacklisting" of trade union officials constitute a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights, and, in general, governments should take stringent measures to combat such practices. [See, for example, 177th Report, Case No. 844 (El Salvador), para. 276.]

&htab;234.&htab;In line with the general principle of freedom of association that no person should be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, the Committee recalls in particular that where a government has undertaken to ensure that the right to associate shall be guaranteed by appropriate measures, that guarantee, in order to be effective, should, when necessary, be accompanied by measures which include the protection of workers against anti-union discrimination in their employment. [See 14th Report, Case No. 105 (Greece), para. 137.] In the present case, the Committee welcomes the fact that the offending files and lists are sealed, under the judiciary's protection, for the moment. On the basis of the documentation before it, it considers that an appropriate remedy to the wrong committed will be forthcoming from the Puerto Rican Supreme Court and requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision to be handed down shortly by that Court, and to supply a copy of it.

&htab;235.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee notes with interest that the national courts have condemned the Puerto Rican police practice of compiling blacklists including unionists and workers' organisations which have no link whatsoever to criminal investigations. It recalls that the practice of "blacklisting" of trade union officials constitutes a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights. (b) While awaiting from the Government a copy of the final decision in the civil case before the Puerto Rican Supreme Court concerning the methods of remedying this illegal and unconstitutional practice, the Committee trusts that an appropriate remedy will be found which will guarantee effectively to Puerto Rican unionists protection against anti-union measures of this kind.

&htab;236.&htab;The complaint alleging violations of freedom of association in Mali was submitted in communications dated 22 March and 19 April 1988 by section III of the National Trade Union of Education and Culture (SNEC). The Government sent its observations and information on this case in a communication dated 10 August 1988.

&htab;237.&htab;Mali 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).

&htab;238.&htab;In their communications of 22 March and 19 April 1988 and in the documentation they enclose on this case, the Secretary-General of section III of the SNEC in the Bamako district, Mr. Modibo Diara, and the Acting Secretary-General of the section, Mr. Youssouf Ganaba, allege that the Government infringed their trade union rights following a strike by their trade union section, which was held from 15 to 20 February 1988.

&htab;239.&htab;Giving an outline of the trade union legislation in Mali, they explain that strike action is authorised under the Constitution and in regulations made under the Act of 7 July 1987 (Act No. 87-47/AN-RM). They denounce the reprisals to which they were subjected for having gone out on strike because their salaries were at least three months in arrears.

&htab;240.&htab;Going into more detail, they point out that under a decision of 9 December 1986, the Ministry of Labour transferred 84 teachers in the middle of the school year. They submit, as an enclosure, decision No. 25/60 MEN-DNEF which includes the names of the transferred teachersand the places to which they were appointed. The two signatories of the complaint are included in this list of teachers. The complainants explain that the teachers transferred were already having to cope with the deprivation caused by the three months' overdue payment of their salaries, when they received the order to transfer to schools where their colleagues had not been paid any salary for four or five months. The complainants add that these transfers were arbitrary in so far as they did not take into account the social conditions of the persons transferred (separation of families, disruption of children's studies, transfer of pregnant women). Furthermore, the transferred teachers allegedly did not receive any compensation or salary advances to enable them to take up their posts, whereas advances of this kind were provided for by law.

&htab;241.&htab;Furthermore, the two signatories of the complaint add that they themselves were dismissed for having allegedly deserted their posts. However, they allege that the competent national authorities, i.e. the Transit Service, considered that the decision of 9 December 1986 transferring them to another post was null and void. This Servicehad requested that the said decision of transfer be updated so that those concerned might be given a transport voucher enabling them to take up their posts. However, the Ministry of Labour allegedly refusedto update the decision of transfer and insisted on the fact that it was still valid. The two signatories of the complaint admit that they did not take up their posts but explained that they could not do so because they had to cope with the problem of their families' survival.

&htab;242.&htab;The complainants also allege the dismissal and disappearance of Issa N'Diaye, teacher of philosophy at the Higher Teacher Training Institute (Ecole normale supérieure) and the detention of Charles Danioko and Komaka Keita, teachers of history and geography and sociology, respectively, in this same school, at the Gendarmerie barracks No. 1. According to the complainants, these teachers had been accused of calling the students' march in their school in support of the teachers.

&htab;243.&htab;Finally, it would seem from the documentation enclosed with the complaint that the executive of the National Trade Union of Education and Culture did not back the striking unionists' claims for the payment of arrears on their salaries; on the contrary, by means of a decision of 10 March 1988 sent on 14 March by the Secretary-General of SNEC, Mr. Simaga, it suspended one of the complainants in this case, i.e. Modibo Diara, Secretary-General of section III, from any trade union and semi-official trade union activity.

&htab;244.&htab;In an open letter sent to the Secretary-General of SNEC, enclosed with the complaint, Modibo Diara protested against his suspension from "any trade union and semi-official trade union activity" with the formal order to "refrain from any SNEC trade union work throughout the country until the next ordinary congress of the organisation", proclaimed by the SNEC Executive. He pointed out that this suspension was contrary to the procedure laid down in the statutes and regulations of the SNEC. Indeed, according to this open letter, although the executive or any other body might suspend one of its members, the national body cannot individually suspend the members of another body (section, division, subdivision or committee) because it did not elect the members of the other level bodies.

&htab;245.&htab;Turning to the facts in this open letter, the complainant points out that whilst he was Secretary-General of section III of the SNEC, in the Bamako district, the only fault committed by his section was to remain faithful to the legitimate aspirations of its activists concerning the chronic delay in the payment of teachers' salaries and benefits as well as in their promotions and reclassifications. In this respect, the complainant quotes the resolution of the congress which "urges the national executive of the National Trade Union of Education and Culture to engage, in co-operation with the other national trade unions and the National Union of Workers of Mali, in the struggle to obtain rights that have been undermined (salaries and benefits, promotions, reclassifications); failing this, the congress will undertake the struggle alone". The complainant goes on to say in the open letter that as part of its campaign, section III, acting in a democratic and legal way, took steps in November 1986 - given that salaries were three months overdue - to persuade the executive to take joint action, as most of the divisions and sections were calling upon the executive to do something other than engage in eternal and unsuccessful negotiations. However, the Secretary-General and several members of the executive riposted by doing everything they could to break this lawful strike, acting worse than the employer, with a view to isolating section III from the other sections in Bamako which none the less had the same problem. Section III's strike of November 1986 nevertheless succeeded and the other sections understood that the struggle was necessary; it is for this reason that the national strike of December 1986 was held.

&htab;246.&htab;According to this open letter, in October 1987, the same problem of salaries in arrears occurred again and, in December 1987, section III wanted to give notice of a strike; this failed when the SNEC executive decided to take action. Indeed, after many hesitations,the SNEC executive decided to lodge a strike notice but this was lifted less than 48 hours later. Section III was therefore obliged to lift its own notice of strike action.

&htab;247.&htab;The complainant points out that in February 1988 the situation remained the same and that section III, faithful to the aspirations of its activists, once again gave notice of a five-day strike, from 15 to 20 February; on Wednesday, 10 February, all the representatives from committees in the city of Bamako, convened by the district co-ordination committee, backed section III's plan to carry out the strike, although the representatives of the committees feared that the executive would change its mind. However, according to the open letter, the strike was a success because more than 90 per cent of teachers participated in it. As an immediate consequence of the strike, 71 teachers, three workers from the National School of Teachersand the Secretary-General and Acting Secretary-General of section III were transferred. In the case of the two latter officials, their transfer was ordered under the earlier decision of 9 December 1986 to which was attached a transfer application form for use in any updating. However, this document had been declared illegal by the Transit Service and those concerned were unable to procure a transport voucher.

&htab;248.&htab;According to the open letter, the reprisals taken in the formof transfers were aimed at discouraging any other strike and therefore any claims or action from the employees. It is for this reason that section III asked the teachers to stay where they were - not out of bravado but because of the significance of what was at stake. A choicehad to be made between taking a firm stand so that the law would be respected in the future or foregoing acquired rights and bending to the employers' illegal and arbitrary action - with all the extremely negative repercussions this would have had on trade unionism. Disagreement arose because of differences of opinion between section III, which wanted to take a firm stand, and the Secretary-General of SNEC who, according to this letter, had acted as a strike breaker amongst the teachers who had been transferred, resorting to threats, intimidation and even corruption - not in the interest of the trade union movement but in collaboration with the employer.

&htab;249.&htab;In its communication of 10 August 1988, the Government acknowledges that the texts regulating freedom of association and the right to strike are indeed the Constitution of 2 June 1974 and its article 13, which guarantees all citizens within the law the right to establish organisations of their own choosing to defend their occupational interests, and Act No. 87-47/AN-RM of 10 August 1987, which establishes the legal framework of the right to strike in the public services, as well as Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 ratified by Mali. The Government nevertheless notes that Article 8 of Convention No. 87, whilst recognising the trade union rights of workers' and employers' organisations, obliges them to respect the law of the land, like other persons or organised collectivities.

&htab;250.&htab;The Government explains that as regards strikes, Act No. 87-47/AN-RM is the basic law in the country. The said Act determines the circumstances in which the right to strike may be exercised. In this context, it stipulates that strikers must clear the premises and not infringe the right to work (section 11).

&htab;251.&htab;The Government goes on to say that in the case in point, several strikers, including the complainants, entered educational establishments and openly sought to prevent non-striking officials from working. Correspondence from the headmasters bears witness to this fact. By acting in this way, the strikers were no longer covered by the legal guarantees and regulations to which they might lay claim because they infringed not only the provisions of section 11 of Act No. 87-47/AN-RM but also those of Article 8 of Convention No. 87.

&htab;252.&htab;As regards the transfer of 84 teachers, including the complainants, the Government explains that under the general regulations of the public service, a public servant may be transferred at any time throughout his career. In the case in point, the transfer of the teaching staff decreed in decision No. 2560/MEN-DNEF of 9 December 1986 was aimed at redeploying the staff within the department to make up for the lack of teachers in the interior of the country. However, after the trade union federation had intervened, a successful solution was found for those in social need.

&htab;253.&htab;However, the Government adds that several teachers, includingprecisely the complainants, did not take up the posts to which they were appointed before the strike of 15 to 20 February 1988, in spite of the various formal warnings issued during the period preceding the strike. In such a case, the legislation and regulations in force are clear. Under section 12 of Act No. 84-45/AN-RM of 9 July 1984, amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 77-71/CMLN of 26 December 1977 regulating the public service, "the public servant shall occupy the post to which he is assigned". He is bound to be punctual in his working hours and to accomplish personally and attentively all obligations incumbent upon him in the course of his duties. The same Act, in section 2, adds to article 122 of the public service regulations a paragraph which reads as follows: "a public servant deserting his post shall also be automatically dismissed", as this is an infringement of the provisions of section 12 above. Furthermore, Circular No. 7/MT-FP-CAB of 28 July 1984 concerning methods to enforce dismissal when an official has deserted his post, as defined under the above-mentioned Act, deems that the public servant deserts his post if he does not take up the appointment to which he has been assigned or does not come back to work after a period of leave and, generally speaking, if the public servant takes unauthorised leave - unless he provides justification for his unauthorised absence.

&htab;254.&htab;The Government points out that if a public servant finds himself in one of the situations listed in the Circular, he is automatically dismissed without any disciplinary proceedings, apart from a warning allowing the official an opportunity to state his case and informing him of the penalties to which he is liable. The warning notice is a preliminary step before a dismissal for desertion of post; it was therefore sent to the two complainants and contained details on the consequences that might arise from failing to respect the order. The complainants, by refusing to comply with their transfer order, voluntarily put themselves at variance with the legislation in force.

&htab;255.&htab;More generally, the Government stresses that binding decisions must be applied immediately because they are presumed to be in conformity with the law; even if the citizen is persuaded that they are illegal, he must comply with them until they have been examined by the courts. It is only after having carried out an order that he might refer the matter to the courts if he challenges the rights of the administrative authority.

&htab;256.&htab;In any case, the fact that the teachers did not agree with their transfer was not enough to justify their refusal to take up the post to which they had been assigned, even if later they were intending to appeal to the competent legal authority. Furthermore, they did their utmost to disrupt the normal course of education during a strike which took place 15 months after they had been notified of their transfer. The Government adds, for information purposes, that the two complainants received their salaries until they were removed from the public service.

&htab;257.&htab;Concerning the validity of the transport voucher, the Government stipulates that a binding decision is valid for an indeterminate period of time and that its effects can only cease if theadministration decides to repeal or withdraw the decision. In other words, as the decision of transfer authorising the issue of a transportvoucher by the Transit Service had not been revoked by the Ministry of National Education, it remained valid as long as the persons concerned had not benefited from the right to use state means to take up the new posts. According to the Government, the administrative transit servicecould not, contrary to the complainants' allegations, be opposed to such an action. Furthermore, the complainants only approached the Transit Service one week after the warning they had received had expired, which demonstrates their unequivocal intention not to comply with the order.

&htab;258.&htab;Concerning the case of Issa N'Diaye, the Government states that this is a specific case which differs from that of the other complainants. Mr. Issa N'Diaye had been transferred from a school to another establishment in the same town (Bamako). Although he was previously consulted before the decision to transfer him was taken, he refused to take up his new post, i.e. Director of Studies at the National School of Engineers. His refusal to take up the post to which he was assigned, in spite of the warnings he received, constitutes, under the legislation on desertion of post, a serious misdemeanour which is penalised by automatic dismissal. The decision to transfer the person in question, under decision No. 0084/MEN-DNESPS of 22 January 1988, was taken before the strike of 15 to 20 February 1988, to which the complainants seem to link all the administrative decisions.

&htab;259.&htab;Concerning the cases of Charles Danioko and Komakan Keita, the Government admits that they were arrested by the police during a student demonstration; it explains that they were arrested for having encouraged the students to go on a march. However, after inquiries made and steps taken by the National Union of Malian Workers and the National Trade Union of Education and Culture, they were purely and simply released.

&htab;260.&htab;In conclusion, the Government considers that, in the light of all that has been described above, the complainants, by subordinating the administrative decisions to the strike, clearly acted in bad faith, especially in view of the fact that all the documents show that the decisions were taken before the strike. Furthermore, not only were the complainants satisfied with holding the law of their country up to ridicule, they set out to spread confusion in the schools to which they no longer belong in any capacity. The Government considers that Mali is a State which respects the law and has always correctly applied the Conventions it has ratified. In this context, the body of national law which contains the principles of these instruments guarantees basic human rights to its citizens in conformity with the ILO's objectives.

&htab;261.&htab;The Committee notes that this complaint concerns reprisals allegedly taken against trade union activists and officials by the Government, following several strikes called by Mali teachers to put forward economic and social claims, on the grounds that their salaries were in arrears for several months during 1986, 1987 and 1988.

&htab;262.&htab;The Committee has noted the detailed explanations provided both by the complainants and the Government on this matter. First of all, it observes that under Mali legislation, strikes are authorised in the teaching sector after notice has been given, in conformity with the principles generally recognised in the field of freedom of association.

&htab;263.&htab;In the second place, however, it would seem that in this case, according to the complainants, although the strikers did give strike notice, the SNEC executive sought to break the strike by changing its mind and lifting the notice. However, according to the complainants, 90 per cent of teachers took part in the protest action.

&htab;264.&htab;On the other hand, according to the Government, the strikers infringed the right to work of those who were not striking. The Government acknowledges that the two trade union officials who are complainants in this case were transferred and then dismissed after the strikes; however, it states that they were dismissed because they refused to take up their posts. It also mentions that another teacher, transferred before the strike in February 1988, was also dismissed for failure to take up his post. Finally, it confirms the arrest of two teachers during a student march but states that the two persons concerned were later released after the national trade union organisations had interceded on their behalf.

&htab;265.&htab;In similar cases concerning violations of the right to strike, the Committee has pointed out, on many occasions, that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers, including teachers, should be able to promote and defend their occupational interests and that the prohibition of strike pickets is justified only if the strike ceases to be peaceful. [See 217th Report, Case No. 1089 (Upper Volta), para. 240.]

&htab;266.&htab;The Committee also recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that nobody should be subjected to discrimination in employment on account of his legitimate trade union membership or activities, including the exercise of the right to strike to settle collective disputes concerning claims of an economic and social nature.

&htab;267.&htab;Indeed, one of the basic principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.

&htab;268.&htab;In the present case, the Committee notes that, at first, the Government ordered many transfers during the school year, following an initial strike in December 1986; it subsequently made further transfers and ordered dismissals and arrests following strike action in February 1988. In these circumstances, the Committee cannot be satisfied with the Government's comments that the strike infringed the right to work of those not striking, even more so since the Government does not deny that teachers had not been paid their salaries for several months.

&htab;269.&htab;The Committee considers that the transfers and dismissals carried out in this case constitute an infringement of freedom of association and it requests the Government to ensure the reinstatement of the dismissed teachers, including Modibo Diara and Youssouf Ganaba.

&htab;270.&htab;As regards the arrest of Charles Danioko and Komakan Keita for having organised a march of students from their school to support the teachers, the Committee, whilst noting with concern that the Government itself acknowledges that those in question were arrested by the police for having encouraged the students to go on a march, observes that these two teachers were released after the national trade union organisations had intervened.

&htab;271.&htab;In the Committee's opinion, the right to strike and that of organising trade union movements or solidarity marches are essential elements of trade union rights, and the measures taken by the authorities to ensure the observance of the law should not therefore result in preventing unions from organising meetings during labour disputes. [See Second Report, Case No. 28 (United Kingdom/Jamaica), para. 68; 22nd Report, Case No. 148 (Poland), para. 102; and 71st Report, Case No. 273 (Argentina), para. 75.]

&htab;272.&htab;As it is pointed out in the resolution concerning trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 54th Session in 1970, the absence of civil liberties removes all meaning from the concept of trade union rights, and the rights conferred upon workers' and employers' organisations must be based on respect for civil liberties.

&htab;273.&htab;In the present case, the Committee notes that the students' and teachers' march was motivated by economic and social claims because the payment of teachers' salaries was long overdue. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the arrest of trade unionists, for the mere reason that they had organised a peaceful march to make economic and social claims, constitutes a violation of freedom of association.

&htab;274.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations, including teachers, should be able to promote and defend their occupational interests.

(b) The Committee also recalls that the right to strike and that of organising union meetings and solidarity marches are essential elements of trade union rights.

(c) The Committee considers that the anti-union reprisals, especially the transfers, dismissals and arrests of trade unionists decided upon by the Government of Mali following strikes called by teachers because their salaries were several months' overdue between 1986 and 1988, constitute an infringement of the freedom of association of these teachers.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to ensure the reinstatement of those teachers dismissed as a result of lawful trade union activities, including Messrs. Modibo Diara and Youssouf Ganaba, trade union officials of section III of the SNEC in the Bamako district, and to keep it informed of measures taken in this respect.

&htab;275.&htab;A complaint of violation of freedom of association against the Government of Guatemala has been presented by the Unified Trade Union Confederation of Guatemala (CUSG) in a communication dated 20 June 1988. The Government sent information and observations on this case in a communication dated 7 September 1988.

&htab;276.&htab;Guatemala 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).

&htab;277.&htab;In its complaint the CUSG alleges arbitrary acts by the Government affecting human rights and freedom of association, and in particular, delays in registering trade unions, dismissal of workers who group together in works committees and attempt to form trade unions, refusal to assist workers in applying agreements concluded and the development of "solidarism".

&htab;278.&htab;As regards the delays in registering trade unions, the CUSG explains that registration documents are lying around in the offices of the Ministry of Labour, so that the registration procedure is being held up, and notes that it is strange that this applies only to trade union organisations, since other organisations obtain registration quickly. Therefore, according to the complainant, the Ministry is infringing the right of association by making the law inoperative.

&htab;279.&htab;As regards the dismissal of workers, the CUSG states that the Mayor of the town of San Antonio Suchitepéquez committed arbitrary acts against the workers. He dismissed a group of manual workers, including the executive of the trade union which was in the process of being set up. According to the complainant confederation, events occurred as follows: first of all, the Mayor attempted to provoke a confrontation which could have resulted in loss of human life, by leading the population and trusted employees to believe that the trade unionists threatened the safety of the inhabitants of San Antonio because they were communists. Secondly, in order to avoid a confrontation, the workers did not hold the assembly that they had called but hid in the local cemetery to hold their general assembly. The workers subsequently lodged appeals with the courts against their unlawful dismissals ordered by the Mayor. The Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the dismissed workers ten months ago, but the workers concerned have still not been reinstated. Moreover, under pressure by the Mayor, a new trade union of trusted employees was set up, with none other than the chief of police as its secretary general.However, according to the Ministry of Labour, it is not permitted for members of the police to set up a trade union. This is why the CUSG wonders how the chief of police of this town could be allowed to become secretary general of a trade union. The most recent case this year is that of the Union of Telephone Workers (GUATEL). In addition to the clear intention of the employer to divide the organisation by setting up a parallel trade union, the above-mentioned trade union - according to the CUSG - was not granted registration, although it had met all the conditions required by the General Labour Directorate.

&htab;280.&htab;In another case dating back to 1987, workers employed in the LUNAFIL factory had no other alternative but to hold a strike. Since September 1987, they had not been given any assistance by the Ministry of Labour in the enforcement of the law, thus giving the enterprise a free hand. The management sold the factory and the new owners succeeded in having the factory forcibly evacuated. The complainant confederation encloses a press cutting from the Campo Pagado newspaper,dated 27 May 1988, containing further details on this allegation. In the article, the workers' trade union of the LUNAFIL SA factory condemns the actions of 500 riot police who entered the factory at 6 a.m. on 26 May in order to evacuate the 39 workers who were peacefully defending their jobs and freedom of association. The police undertook this evacuation on the pretext of executing a court order, but no such order was ever displayed by the police. During the action, persons from nearby areas gathered at the factory; the outcome was utter confusion, resulting from acts of violence committed by the security forces: police fired shots, and a member of the trade union's executive, Julio Coj, was injured; two workers from a nearby factory were detained by the police and later released. According to the press cutting, the trade union considers that the Government applied such methods in an attempt to repress and silence the workers, since the state security forces only acted to enforce court orders favourable to the employers and failed to intervene when such orders were favourable to the workers.

&htab;281.&htab;The CUSG explains further that the Unified Trade Union Popular Action Group (Unidad de Acción Sindical y Popular), which is the highest form of expression of the Guatemalan workers, signed agreements with the Government on 8 March 1988 concerning economic, agrarian and social policy, human rights, administrative corruption and energy policy. As regards social policy, the agreement provided for a wage increase of at least 50 quetzales per month for workers in the private sector, to be implemented within 45 days. However, according to the complainant, 90 days later the increase had still not been granted, in violation of the agreements of 8 March, and disregarding the economic needs of the workers and their families. As regards the grant of legal personality to the trade union, the agreements also provided that all of the trade unions be registered immediately with the General Labour Directorate, allowing a period of 30 days to examine the documents and complete the formalities for definitive registration. Again, 90 days have passed without the registrations having been completed.

&htab;282.&htab;As regards the so-called "solidarism" movement, the CUSG explains that this is an employers' anti-trade union movement based in Costa Rica which is growing by leaps and bounds, as it has what workers lack, i.e. money. In addition, workers are regularly sent to Costa Rica to be indoctrinated. The complainant gives the example of the banana plantations of Izabal, in which the trade union is being undermined by "solidarists" who mislead the workers with a view to eliminating the trade union organisation.

&htab;283.&htab;In its reply dated 7 September 1988, the Government communicates detailed observations and information on each of the allegations of the complainant confederation.

&htab;284.&htab;As regards the allegation of intervention by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in the registration of trade unions, statistical figures of the Ministry show that the complainant's allegations are incorrect. At the beginning of the current democratic process, 456 trade unions were registered. From 1979 to 1985, the era of authoritarian governments, only 39 trade unions were registered, that is, an average of 5.5 per year; 1983 being a year in which not a single trade union was registered. In the first two years alone of the present Government's administration, 62 trade unions were registered, and 32 more were registered in the first six months of 1988. According to the Government, the amount of time it takes to complete registration formalities has been considerably reduced, since in 1984, 121 days were necessary, the figure dropping to 24 in 1986, seven in 1987, and six in the first six months of this year.

&htab;285.&htab;The Government admits that the provisions of the Labour Code currently in force, namely, sections 212, 216, 218, 219 and 233, do not facilitate the procedure for registering trade unions, and announces that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has submitted a draft amendment of the legal framework, which will probably be examined in the near future by the legislative body. This amendment should considerably simplify the registration of trade unions. The Government therefore refutes the allegations of the complainant confederation and affirms that it does not violate freedom of association or make the law inoperative, but that, on the contrary, it is making every effort to facilitate the procedure by amending the Labour Code.

&htab;286.&htab;As regards the allegation of arbitrary acts committed by the Mayor of the town of San Antonio Suchitepéquez, the Government observesthat the complainant itself has stated that the case has been brought before the labour and social welfare courts. The Government stresses that in Guatemala, in accordance with article 141 of the Constitution, no subordination exists between the legislative, executive and judiciary bodies. One of the cornerstones of the current democratic process is the independence of these branches. Therefore, the executive, in this case the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, has nothing to do with proceedings instituted before the labour courts.Notwithstanding the above, assuming that the allegation of the CUSG is true, the Labour Code currently in force sets out penalties for disobedience in sections 414 and 440, and thus workers are entitled to institute penal proceedings in this case. The Government concludes that the Ministry of Labour has no competence in this respect.

&htab;287.&htab;As regards the Union of Telephone Workers (GUATEL), the Government indicates that the General Labour Directorate, which is the administrative body responsible for registering trade unions, has not received any application for the grant of legal personality and the approval of the by-laws of any trade union of telephone operators called GUATEL. Therefore the allegation of the CUSG is not correct, since the trade union concerned does not exist. According to the Government, there is only one file on telecommunications workers in the General Labour Directorate. The Union of Workers of the Tropical Radio Telegraph Company was founded on 28 April 1957, and its by-laws were approved and legal personality was granted at that time. In 1966 this trade union changed its name to Union of Workers of International Telecommunications of Guatemala and in 1983 this was replaced by its current name, the Workers' Trade Union of the Guatemala Telecommunications Company. In other words, in the telecommunications enterprise there is and only has been one trade union.

&htab;288.&htab;As regards the workers employed in the LUNAFIL factory, the Government states that from the outset the current administration of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has taken a special interestin the case of the workers in this factory. The case had been brought before the labour courts and the Ministry was therefore not able to intervene. The only action open to it was that of mediation between employers and workers with a view to reaching a settlement which would be acceptable to both parties. The file on this case indicates that this was in fact done. The trade union leaders requested mediation by the Minister of Labour and, on 23 July 1988, in the presence of the Minister of Labour of Costa Rica, the Minister of Labour of Guatemala participated in the reopening of the factory and the definitive settlement of the dispute. In this connection, the Government enclosesa copy of the mediation record, signed in the presence of the Minister of Special Affairs by several leaders of the workers' trade union of the LUNAFIL SA enterprise and by several respresentatives of the employer, in which the parties express their desire to reach an agreement in order to achieve a definitive settlement of the dispute affecting the enterprise since 9 June 1987. Following discussions, the workers consented to leave the premises of the enterprise on 22 July. It was decided that measures should be undertaken to enable the enterprise to resume operations as from 23 August. The enterprise agreed to reinstate 24 of its former employees, whose names were put forward by the executive of the trade union. It was also decided that the parties committed themselves to discussing a draft collective agreement and to renounce all judicial action.

&htab;289.&htab;As regards the agreement signed between the Government and the Unified Trade Union Popular Action Group and, in particular, the issue of wage increases, the Government explains that the executive has complied with its obligations by submitting a bill to the legislative body. However, the Government recalls that in view of the separation of powers to which it has already referred, the executive cannot compel the legislative body to approve a bill.

&htab;290.&htab;As regards "solidarism", the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare has decided not to register associations of workers formed with the aim of setting up a "solidarist" group. It explains, however, that constitutional provisions (article 34) provide for the right of free association so that the exercise of this right cannot be denied. The Ministry of Labour considers that those wishing to exercise this right in order to set up a "solidarist" association must apply to the Ministry of the Interior, which, under the law, is alone competent for such matters. Notwithstanding the above, the Government adds that the Ministry of Labour is of the opinion that it is for the workers themselves to denounce the objectives of "solidarism" and its contradictions with the objectives of trade unions. It is not the Ministry of Labour which is competent in this respect. The allegations of the complainant confederation on this point are therefore unfounded.

&htab;291.&htab;The Minister of Labour concludes by explaining that since he took office on 17 October 1987, 59 trade unions have been registered and nine other applications are being processed. Enclosed with the Government's letter are statistical reports of the General Labour Directorate concerning registration of trade unions, which confirm the information supplied by the Government.

&htab;292.&htab;In the first place, the Committee notes with interest that, unlike past practice, the Government has collaborated in the procedure surrounding this case by sending in September 1988 detailed replies to the allegations submitted in June 1988 by the complainant confederation. This is particularly gratifying since for many years the Committee has had occasion to regret the Government's lack of co-operation in the procedure and since it was obliged, many times, to examine the substance of a great many complaints without having any information or observations from the Government at its disposal.

&htab;293.&htab;Secondly, on the substance of the matter, the Committee observes that the Government's replies to the various allegations submitted in this case show that on certain points it has endeavoured, at least in part, to give the CUSG satisfaction. However, the versions given by the Government and by the complainant confederation are often contradictory and the action taken by the Government to redress the violations of freedom of association does not always appear to have been adequate.

&htab;294.&htab;As far as the CUSG is concerned, the public authorities are arbitrarily violating human rights and freedom of association by failing to register trade unions, by allowing the dismissal of works committee members seeking to set up new trade unions, by failing to support workers in their attempts to see that agreements reached are properly implemented and by encouraging the development of "solidarism".

&htab;295.&htab;As regards the first aspect of this complaint concerning the delays in registration of trade unions by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Government states for its part that, although the successive authoritarian governments in power between 1979 and 1985 were very slow in registering trade unions (as only 39 unions were registered during the period), since the country's return to democracy in 1985, 94 unions have been registered, 59 of them since October 1987. The Government also claims that the amount of time it takes to complete registration formalities has been considerably reduced, although it admits that the provisions of the Labour Code currently in force do not facilitate the procedure, and states that legislative amendments have been drafted to solve the problem.

&htab;296.&htab;The Committee trusts that, in conformity with the Government's undertakings in its reply, the current review of the legislation on the subject will enable the adoption of provisions that are in accordance with Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), which Guatemala has ratified. In particular, the Committee stresses the importance it attaches to the principle that the acquisition of a legal personality by workers' organisations must not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to impair the guarantees provided for in the Convention, and specifically the guarantee that workers will not be hindered by the public authorities in the exercise of their right to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.

&htab;297.&htab;As to the dismissal of works committee members who seek to set up trade unions, the Committee notes that the CUSG's allegations regarding the attitude of the municipality of San Antonio Suchitepéquez are not very clear, but that it would appear from the complaint that workers seeking to establish a union of municipal employees have been dismissed and have lodged an appeal with the courtson the grounds that their dismissal was illegal. The Government does not contest this allegation. Indeed, it confirms that the case has been brought before the labour courts, but argues that because of the separation of the executive and the judiciary it is not competent in the matter.

&htab;298.&htab;Whenever it has examined cases of anti-union discrimination against workers seeking to establish a trade union, the Committee has always recalled that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination likely to infringe upon freedom of association in their employment, such as dismissal, transfer, demotion or other prejudicial measures, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of the founders of trade unions because, in order to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate that they are seeking or already hold from their trade unions. The Committee considers that the guarantee of such protection in the case of the founders of trade unions is necessary to ensure respect for the fundamental principle that workers are entitled to establish organisations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever. [See 254th Report, Case No. 1396 (Haiti), para. 389.]

&htab;299.&htab;In this particular case the Committee stresses that, when Guatemala ratified Convention No. 87, the Government freely undertook to guarantee all workers, including municipal employees, the right to establish organisations of their own choosing to promote and defend their occupational, economic and social interests. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to indicate: (1) whether the employees of the municipality of San Antonio Suchitepéquez who were dismissed for attempting to found a trade union have been reinstated in their jobs, and (2) whether the workers concerned have been able to establish a trade union of their own choosing as they were seeking to do.

&htab;300.&htab;As regards the allegation that the Government has not supported workers in their attempt to ensure that the agreements reached were properly implemented, and as regards in particular the alleged infringement of the right to strike at the LUNAFIL factory as a result of a labour dispute, the Committee notes with regret that to begin with, according to a press cutting sent by the CUSG which the Government has not contested, 39 workers inside the factory who were peacefully defending their jobs and freedom of association were attacked by members of the riot police who used violence to evacuate the factory, wounding a trade unionist and arresting two others in the process.

&htab;301.&htab;When it has had to deal with cases of this nature in the past, the Committee has expressed the general view that the use of security forces, in so far as the facts showed that their intervention was limited to the maintenance of public order and did not restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to strike, is not in violation of freedom of association. On the other hand, the Committee has always regarded the use of police for strike-breaking purposes as an infringement of trade union rights. [See 230th Report, Case No. 1187 (Islamic Republic of Iran), para. 674 and 234th Report, Case No. 1227 (India), para. 312.] Moreover, the Committee considers that governments should give strict instructions and initiate effective disciplinary proceedings whenever the breaking up of a meeting of workers by the police causes grievous bodily harm and is of the opinion that the arrest of strikers involves a serious risk of abuse for freedom of association.

&htab;302.&htab;In addition, the Committee notes with interest that the Government offered to mediate in the dispute at the LUNAFIL factory and that, following an agreement reached through the Minister of Special Affairs, the enterprise agreed to reinstate 24 of its former employees whose names were put forward by the executive of the trade union; the parties also undertook to discuss a draft collective agreement and to renounce all judicial action. In these circumstances,while stressing the importance it attaches to the principles set out in the preceeding paragraph, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

&htab;303.&htab;As regards the complaint concerning the development of "solidarism", which the complainant confederation claims is supported by the Government, the Committee notes the Government's denial of this charge and its indication that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has decided not to register associations of workers formed with the aim of setting up a "solidarist" group. The Government explains, however, that the right of association is guaranteed by the Constitution and that those wishing to set up such associations must apply to the Ministry of the Interior.

&htab;304.&htab;The Committee considers it appropriate to point out that on the subject of "solidarism", it already stressed in 1985, when considering a Bill to consolidate "solidarity" associations (of the "solidarist" movement) which the complainants claimed were supported by the employers and parallel to the trade union movement, that the provisions governing "solidarity" associations should respect the activities of trade unions guaranteed by Convention No. 98. [See 240th Report, Case No. 1304 (Costa Rica), para. 94.]

&htab;305.&htab;In the present case the Committee draws the Government's attention to Article 2 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98), ratified by Guatemala, which provides that workers' organisations must enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by employers or employers' organisations and that measures designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of employers or employers' organisations or to support workers' organisations by financial and other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers' organisations, are specifically assimilated to such acts of interference. The Workers' RepresentativesConvention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154), likewise contain explicit provisions guaranteeing that, where there exist in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected representatives, appropriate measures are to be taken to ensure that the existence of elected representatives in an enterprise is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned.

&htab;306.&htab;In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee notes with interest that, unlike past practice, the Government has co-operated in the procedure by sending observations and information rapidly in reply to the allegations submitted by the complainant in June 1988.

(b) With regard to the delays in registration of trade unions which is criticised by the complainant confederation, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, a considerable number of trade unions have in fact been registered since the country's return to democracy and that the delays in registration have been reduced. The Committee nevertheless invites the Government to follow through with its stated intention to amend the law so as to remove the barriers to the acquisition of legal personality by trade unions.

(c) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this aspect of the case as it relates to the application of Convention No. 87.

(d) As regards the anti-union discrimination against workers seeking to set up a trade union of municipal employees, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87 ratified by Guatemala, all workers, including municipal workers, should have the right to establish the organisations of their own choosing in defence of their occupational interests; the Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the workers of the municipality of San Antonio Suchitepéquez who were dismissed for attempting to found a trade union have been reinstated in their jobs following their appeal against the dismissals, and whether the union of workers of the municipality has been granted legal personality.

(e) As regards the dispute at the LUNAFIL factory which resulted in the wounding of a striking worker and the arrest of two other strikers, the Committee recalls the importance it attaches to the principle that peaceful strike action is one of the essential means that must be available to workers to defend their economic and social interests.

(f) Consequently, with respect to the bodily harm inflicted by the riot police who were evacuating the factory where, according to the complainant, 39 strikers were peacefully defending their jobs and freedom of association, the Committee recalls that governments should give strict instructions and initiate effective disciplinary proceedings whenever the breaking up of a meeting of workers by the police causes grievous bodily harm. (g) As regards the arrest of the two strikers during this labour dispute, the Committee stresses that the arrest of strikers involves a serious risk of abuse for freedom of association.

(h) The Committee notes, however, with interest that the labour dispute at the LUNAFIL factory has been settled thanks to the mediation of the public authorities and, while emphasising the importance of the principles set out in the foregoing subparagraphs, considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

(i) As regards the allegations relating to "solidarism", the Committee recalls the importance it attaches, in conformity with Article 2 of Convention No. 98, to protection being ensured against any acts of interference by employers designed to promote the establishment of workers' organisations under the domination of an employer.

&htab;307.&htab;This case has already been examined by the Committee on four previous occasions (236th, 243rd, 251st and 256th Reports approved by the Governing Body, respectively, in November 1984, February 1986, May 1987 and May 1988) on all of which it came to interim conclusions. This case also figured among the ten cases against the Government of El Salvador examined jointly by the direct contacts mission which visited the country in January 1986. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) presented further information relating to the case in a communication dated 25 May 1988. The Government supplied its observations on the case in a letter of 8 July 1988.

&htab;308.&htab;El Salvador has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;309.&htab;At its latest examination of Case No. 1273 [256th Report, paras. 238-254] the following questions remained pending before the Committee:

- The Committee requested the Government to supply additional information on the alleged murder by members of the armed forces of the trade unionists Francisco Méndez (on 11 October 1986) and Marco Antonio Orantes (on 29 January 1985), and to carry out a judicial inquiry into these matters. The Committee also requested information on the progress of the trial of two accused before the Fourth Criminal Court on charges of the murder of the trade union leader José Arístides Mendez, which had commenced in July 1986. - The Committee requested the Government to provide additional information on the arrests of Adalberto Martínez (23 June 1986), Andrés Miranda (27 June 1986), Gregorio Aguillón Ventura (1 February 1986), and José Antonio Rodríguez (18 August 1986); as well as on the raid on the premises of ANDES and confiscation of its documents by the armed forces on 29 April 1986, and the dismissal of six union leaders in the telecommunications sector as the result of a strike called on 15 April 1986. - The Committee deeply deplored the violent acts that had occurred on 8 July 1987 between military and police forces and workers of the Social Security Institute and urged the Government to set up an independent judicial inquiry with a view to determining responsibilities, punishing the guilty parties and preventing the repetition of such acts, and to keep the Committee informed of any steps taken to open a judicial investigation.

- The Committee requested the Government to send its observations on the allegations made by the United Trade Union Federation of El Salvador (FUSS) and the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) on 11 and 27 April 1988, respectively. In the FUSS communication it was alleged that on 10 April the house (at No. 21, Colonia Lamatepec, Pasaje F, Zona D, in the town of Santa Ana) of Mrs. Marta Castaneda, a member of the Coffee Union (SICAFE) and leader of the Women's Committee of that union, was blown up and that five minutes after the attack a unit of the Second Infantry Brigade, accompanied by the police, appeared on the scene; that on 7 and 8 April the Colonia had been surrounded and searched by members of the Second Infantry Brigade who had kept it sealed off until 2.00 p.m. on 8 April when the trade unionist Castaneda was allowed to leave; and that trade unionist Marta Alicia Sigüenza, a member of the general executive committee of SICAFE, had been unable to come to her place of work and had been forced to hide for fear of being killed by the government forces. The WFTU communication alleges the persecution of members of the Union of Salvadorian Telecommunications Workers (ASTTEL), in particular its General Secretary, Mr. Raphael Sanchez, who was dismissed on 10 January 1986, and the current General Secretary, Mr. Humberto Centeno, who was arrested and beaten on 10 March 1988. It also alleges the detention and torture of Mr. Centeno's two sons as a means of pressuring the Union, and the death by shooting at the hands of death squads of the unionists Victor Manuel Hérnandez Vasquez (on 13 January 1988), Medardo Ceferino Ayala (on 18 December 1987) and José Herbert Guardado (on 1 March 1988).

&htab;310.&htab;On 25 May 1988 the WFTU provided further information concerning the persecution of members of the ASTTEL, already referred to in its April 1988 letter mentioned above. It states that:

- on 13 April 1988 Manuel de Jesus Rodas Barahona was shot dead outside his home by two men in civilian clothing "death squad style";

- on 15 April José Mazariego was abducted by the police and interrogated about his union work for 36 hours;

- on 18 March L.W. Barrios and Misael Flores were abducted by the First Infantry Brigade, beaten and threatened before their release in an effort to coerce them into leaving ASTTEL;

- on 17 March Alberto Luis Alfaro disappeared around 6.30 a.m. when leaving for work and his whereabouts remain unknown;

- since January 1986 ASTTEL has been working without a contract because the telecommunications company (ANTEL) reneged the collective agreement and, despite requests from the union and the 51-day (April 1986) strike referred to in previous examinations of this case, refuses to negotiate a new contract or meet with ASTTEL.

&htab;311.&htab;In general, the WFTU points out that despite article 47 of the El Salvadorian Constitution, which guarantees public sector employees the right to organise and bargain collectively, the authorities make use of the Labour Code to deny ASTTEL the status of a "union" having it only as an "association"; the telecommunications company workers are denied the right to strike and are punished under section 433 of the Penal Code or Decree No. 296 for any absence from work; Decree No. 162 of 1985 permitting transfer of public sector workers is being used to break up branch unions and remove their leaders.

&htab;312.&htab;In addition, the WFTU alleges that the telecommunications company is controlled by the military (the alleged death squad founder,Defence Minister General Eugene Casanova, appointed his brother, Colonel Mauricio Casanova, as President of the company). It quotes the March 1988 American WATCH report "Labour rights in El Salvador" stating: "Government repression against organised workers in El Salvador ... is extensive, systematic and often brutal ... Although no one organisation has had a monopoly on victimisation, ASTTEL has in recent years emerged as a special target of the security forces."

&htab;313.&htab;In its letter of 8 July 1988, the Government states that there is no trade union in the national telecommunications administration of the type covered by El Salvadorian legislation. The description "de facto union" referred to in this complaint is not known in Salvadorian law or industrial relations practice and it is therefore totally inappropriate to call ASTTEL (Asociación Salvadoreña de Trabajadores de Telecomunicaciones) a "union". According to the Government, this is not just a point of formality, but is of vital importance to the issue of legitimate representation of the workers. As an "association", under section 540(2) of the Civil Code, ASTTEL comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior, whereas "unions" are regulated by the Labour Code and administered by the Ministry of Labour.

&htab;314.&htab;According to the Government, ASTTEL claimed rights and powers which it could not enjoy as it is not a union; likewise, its leaders, not being trade union leaders, have no right to protection against dismissal. The Government points out that, despite this, the employer had allowed the workers' associations to carry out activities and ASTTEL had, in the past, had complete freedom for this. However, its mobility is somewhat restricted because of its constant agitation and infringements of the law. Whenever ASTTEL leaders challenged the employer's disciplinary measures before various jurisdictions (labour courts, Supreme Court), they have been unsuccessful.

&htab;315.&htab;The Government adds that there is a second similar body in the telecommunications company, namely the Salvadorian Association of Workers in ANTEL (ASTA), which also enjoys freedom of actions and movement. The basic difference between the two associations is that ASTA is not involved in political objectives. ASTTEL, on the other hand, states the Government, has called 45 illegal strikes just between 1987 and 1988 and has taken part in disturbances and street violence and a dozen street demonstrations which have resulted in damage to the employer's buildings and vehicles.

&htab;316.&htab;The Government explains certain of the specific WFTU allegations against the above background. For example, three telecommunications workers were dismissed after an illegal strike in November 1985 called for the release from criminal detention of an ASTTEL leader's (Mr. José Humberto Centeno) two sons; the employer had won from the labour court a declaration that the strike was illegal and had warned the strikers that they risked punishment for unjustified absences from work; it points out, however, that the strike leaders were not dismissed but merely were not paid for the days not worked. In this connection, the Government observes that article 221 of the Salvadorian Constitution bans strikes by workers in public and municipal services. Moreover, the Labour Code (sections 527, 528, 547, 553 and 555) sets out the legal formalities required for strike action and Decree No. 296 of 24 June 1980 also bans strikes by government employees. It is thus incomprehensible that ASTTEL claimed rights that it could not enjoy under the law.

&htab;317.&htab;According to the Government, the WFTU letter of 27 April 1988 is incorrect in alleging that Mr. Centeno's two sons were still detained "as a means of pressuring the union", since José and Jaime Centeno were released in November 1987 under an Amnesty Decree applying to criminals sentenced for political offences. It stresses that the November 1985 strike called by ASTTEL had nothing to do with labour matters, but was used for the liberation of these two individuals who had no link to the employer involved.

&htab;318.&htab;The Government states that over the last year, the ASTTEL leadership has introduced a new element to its systematic confrontationwith the employing public enterprise ANTEL, namely the false and malicious accusation that its president is responsible for the death of three workers carried out by unknown persons. Although the Government has given full replies to various national and foreign bodies on this, it has requested the Public Prosecutor to clarify the facts. The Government stresses that even the widow of the late José Herbert Guardado has requested, through the national press, that ASTTELcease manipulating the tragic death of her husband for political and propaganda ends. A copy of the press clipping publishing her letter to the employer dated 14 March 1988 is enclosed in which she states that the leaders of ASTTEL "... are trying - without any basis and only for their own interests - to make [her husband's] death look like a result of labour struggles in which they are also making false accusations against the authorities of ANTEL, who deserve our respect and gratitude".

&htab;319.&htab;The Government claims that to link these deaths to the labour-management problems shows the particular bad faith of the persons concerned since ANTEL, being a huge undertaking employing almost 6,000 workers and given the circumstances reigning in the country, would most probably have some workers getting involved in events liable to lead to tragic deaths. It gives the following specific information on the deaths:

- Mr. Guardado was, according to newspaper reports, attacked in a bus by thieves;

- Victor Manuel Hernandez Vasquez was the son of one of ANTEL's section chiefs and had been on an internship for 15 days when he died; he cannot therefore be called a permanent employee or an ASTTEL member; - Medano Ceferino Ayala had never been an ASTTEL leader and it is not known whether he was even a member or participated in the association's activities.

&htab;320.&htab;In conclusion, the Government states that the claims against the telecommunications company form part of an orchestrated disinformation programme at the international level and go beyond the legitimate interests of safeguarding workers. It recalls that certain ASTTEL leaders, such as Mr. J.H. Centeno, are members of the Unidad de los Trabajadores Salvadorenos (UNTS) which supports and promotes acts of provocation and disrespect for the forces of law and order. It explains that the March 1988 strike at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security saw Mr. Centeno beat members of the military. He was detained because of his violent behaviour and later released. According to press clippings from "Latino" and "La Prensa Grafica" supplied by the Government, on 10 March 1988, 200 or so persons arrived in buses and grouped themselves around the Ministry shouting insults at and threatening the military personnel who were present to protect the buildings; after Mr. Centeno attacked one soldier there was general tumult which left various people injured and led to Mr. Centeno's arrest; he was taken to a police station and from there by the police to a private hospital for treatment of the blows he had received during the disturbance at the Ministry.

&htab;321.&htab;Before examining the various allegations which relate to anti-union harassment by the telecommunications company ANTEL, the Committee reminds the Government that it has neither replied to the recent allegations concerning threats to two female members of the Coffee Union (SICAFE) in April 1988, nor has it supplied further information on progress in the trial of two persons accused of the murder of the trade union leader José Arístides Mendez which commenced in July 1986. It accordingly requests the Government to reply as rapidly as possible, particularly as regards the trial before the Fourth Criminal Court and recalls in this connection that governments should do everything possible to avoid excessively lengthy trials. The Committee has stated in past cases that it should be the policy of every government to ensure observance of human rights and especially the right of all detained or accused persons to receive a fair trial at the earliest possible moment. [See, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 963 (Grenada), para. 78, and 247th Report, Cases Nos. 997, 999 and 1029 (Turkey), para. 20.]

&htab;322.&htab;As regards the outstanding issue [see 243rd Report, para. 408] of the alleged murder of the trade unionists Francisco Méndez (on 11 October 1986) and Marco Antonio Orantes (on 29 January 1985), the Committee recalls that the Government had previously replied that it - and the various security bodies - had no information on them but they were trying to ascertain the whereabouts of Mr. Méndez and to clarify the situation of Mr. Orantes. Since the Committee has received no morerecent information than these general denials and protestations of ignorance, it can only deeply deplore the disappearance in suspicious circumstances of these two trade union leaders. It draws the Government's attention to the importance of vigilance in investigating such cases since a climate of violence, such as that surrounding the murder or disappearance of trade union leaders, constitutes a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights. [See, for example, 236th Report, Cases Nos. 1157 and 1192 (Philippines), para. 299.]

&htab;323.&htab;As regards the Committee's request for additional information on the reasons which were the basis for the arrests of four named trade unionists in February, June and August 1986 [see 251st Report, para. 332, May-June 1987], it can only regret the Government's lack of co-operation in following up on these events and draw its attention to the principle that the arrest and detention of trade unionists, even for reasons of internal security, may constitute a serious interference with trade union rights unless attended by appropriate judicial safeguards such as a prompt and fair trial. [See, for example, 233rd Report, Case No. 1211 (Bahrain), para. 589.]

&htab;324.&htab;Likewise, as regards the Government's total silence on the alleged raid by the armed forces on the headquarters of the National Association of Educators of El Salvador (ANDES) on 20 April 1986 [first raised in the Committee's 251st Report, para. 355, May-June 1987], the Committee can only conclude that this raid and the accompanying confiscation of union property infringed the principles of freedom of association. It draws the Government's attention to the fact that the resolution on trade union rights and their relation to civil liberties, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 54th (1970) Session, declares that the right to adequate protection of trade union property is one of those civil liberties which are essential for the normal exercise of trade union rights. [See, for example, 230th Report, Case No. 1160 (Suriname), para. 548.]

&htab;325.&htab;Turning to what now remains as the central group of allegations in Case No. 1273, namely the various measures of harassmentaffecting members and leaders of the Association of Salvadorian Telecommunications Workers (ASTTEL), the Committee notes with concern that the management - allegedly in collusion with the armed forces - is accused by the complainants of a wide variety of anti-union acts. These acts range from repudiation of the collective agreement in January 1986 to dismissals (six after a strike on 15 April 1986 and one on 10 January 1986), arrests and beatings while in detention, disappearance (of Mr. Alberto Luis Alfaro on 17 March 1988) and four murders (Mr. M.C. Ayala on 18 December 1987, Mr. M.H. Vasquez on 13 January 1988, Mr. J.H. Guardado on 1 March 1988 and Mr. M. de Jesus Rodas Barahona on 13 April 1988).

&htab;326.&htab;The Committee notes that the Government disputes the occupational nature of ASTTEL and argues that its complaints concerningcollective agreements and lack of protection against dismissals are legally without basis since the association is not a "union" and is thus not entitled to the rights and protections accorded to unions. Moreover, according to the Government, ASTTEL is pursuing political objectives through violent means.

&htab;327.&htab;While it is difficult for the Committee to take a stand when faced with directly contradictory descriptions of the industrial relations climate in a particular sector, it nevertheless is in a position to guide the parties in this case since it has repeatedly decided that where public employees - especially in public enterprises and nationalised undertakings - are not involved directly in the administration of the State, the national legislation should allow them to bargain collectively [see, for example, 211th Report, Case No. 965 (Malaysia), para. 206]. The Committee has indeed specifically pointed out in past cases that employees of the telecommunications services should enjoy this aspect of freedom of association [see 139th Report, Case No. 725 (Japan), para. 278]. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to review the situation of ANTEL employees with a view to ensuring that their rights to associate in workers' organisations and to carry out activities, such as bargaining, to promote and defend their interests are protected.

&htab;328.&htab;The Committee adds that the review requested above should include coverage of the workers concerned by the appropriate legislation on protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in employment. This is so since the Committee has recalled on many occasions that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, particularly for trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. [See, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 1113 (India), para. 130, Case No. 1272 (Chile), para. 637.]

&htab;329.&htab;As regards the disappearance and deaths, the Committee notes that information is yet to be provided on that of Mr. Alberto Luis Alfaro and Mr. M. de Jesus Rodas Barahona; it requests the Government to send its comments as soon as possible. As for the other three deaths, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, Mr. Guardado's murder at the hands of thieves had nothing to do with his trade union activities and that the deaths of Messrs. Vasquez and Ayala could not have been related to union functions or activities since they were never union members. Since the complainants give no further details in support of their allegations that these deaths by unknown armed bandits were in retaliation for the labour unrest in the telecommunications company, the Committee can only regret this loss of life and stress that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free of violence and uncertainty. [See, for example, 205th Report, Case No. 983 (Bolivia), para. 33.]

&htab;330.&htab;Lastly, as regards the arrests of unionists and alleged beating while in police custody, the Committee awaits the Government's comments on the alleged arrests in March and April 1988 of Messrs. L.W. Barrios, Misael Flores and José Mazariego, all ASTTEL members. It notes the Government's description of the release of the two Centeno sons and of the violence started by Mr. Humberto Centeno on 10 March 1988. It notes in particular that Mr. H. Centeno's detention was due to his disorderly behaviour, that his injuries were directly related to his attack on military guards and occurred before he was taken into custody and that, after treatment at a private hospital, he was released. It accordingly recalls that workers and their organisations, like all other citizens, should respect the law of the land and considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.

&htab;331.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee must once again express its regret that the Government has not sent all the information requested on the pending allegations and requests its comments on: (i) the threats against two female members of the Coffee Union (SICAFE) in April 1988; (ii) progress in the trial concerning the murder of José Arístides Mendez which commenced in July 1986; (iii) the disappearance of Mr. Alberto Luis Alfaro on 17 March 1988 and the death of Mr. M. de Jesus Rodas Barahona on 13 April 1988; (iv) the brief arrests of ASTTEL members, Messrs. L.W. Barrios, Misael Flores and José Mazariego in March and April 1988.

(b) As regards the various measures of anti-union harassment aimed at the Association of Salvadorian Telecommunications Workers, the Committee notes with concern the poor industrial relations climate reigning in the telecommunications company (ANTEL) and recalls that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free of violence and uncertainty. (c) As regards the legislative aspect of the case, the Committee requests the Government to adopt legislative provisions ensuring that the workers of the telecommunications company (ANTEL) have the right to associate in unions and to carry out activities, such as collective bargaining, to promote and defend their interests and that they are protected against acts of anti-union discrimination in employment.

&htab;332.&htab;The complaint is contained in communications from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 7 March, 27 April, 4 May, 17 June and 12 October 1988. The Government supplied its observations in communications dated 28 June and 7 September 1988.

&htab;333.&htab;El Salvador has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;334.&htab;In its communication of 7 March 1988, the ICFTU notes with concern the continuing violations of trade union rights which occur nearly every day in El Salvador. The communication states that in spite of major efforts to make the country democratic during the past eight years, allowing a certain degree of social action and the holding of elections in 1984, El Salvador continues to be a country caught up in a civil war; a country marked by violence, poverty and social isolation. The long-standing oligarchies and extreme right forces are continuing - according to the communication - to exert - together with the army - a disproportionate influence in political and economic life. The same Government, elected in 1984, has not succeeded in subordinating the army to civilian power. The economic situation is dramatic; unemployment is as high as 70 per cent amongst the economically active population and the situation might become worse with the recent legislation regulating the presence of illegal Salvadorian workers in the United States. During the past seven years, inflation has exceeded 300 per cent and there is a lack of basic foodstuffs and a serious housing shortage (almost half the population live in makeshift huts or rural shacks made out of any available material). In addition to all this, the illiteracy rate is 60 per cent. According to the communication, the Government's response to the acute economic crisis has been to adopt a series of austerity measures and to wage a campaign of selective repression, designed to lower the workers' morale and undermine their cause.

&htab;335.&htab;The ICFTU communication goes on to say that the lack of an agreement to end the civil war had resulted in bombings and expensive military operations that lay waste to the fauna and flora, destroy infrastructure, mining installations etc., and aggravate considerably the already disastrous economic situation. As regards human and trade union rights, the security forces are continuing to violate them in a selective way and death squads have once again appeared on the scene. Murders and disappearances for political and trade union reasons are continuing. Until now, no member of the security forces has been tried for violating human rights. Salvadorian workers are entitled, under the Constitution, to organise. However, trade union rights, such as the right to establish trade unions, to bargain collectively and to strike, are restricted in the private sector; the workers in public institutions, which are not independent, do not enjoy these rights. In spite of these constitutional guarantees, both the Government and right and left-wing extremists are attempting, in various ways, to put pressure on and manipulate workers and their organisations for political ends, thereby hindering the consolidation of an autonomous trade union movement capable of defending and promoting workers' interests.

&htab;336.&htab;The ICFTU adds that there was an increase in the number of violations of human and trade union rights during 1987; it encloses a report listing the repressive measures taken by the armed forces, police and death squads during the period from August to December 1987. (See Annex I.)

&htab;337.&htab;Furthermore, the communication adds that the insurrectionary forces - claiming to belong to the FMLN - which were involved in a campaign to paralyse overland transport and sabotage the electoral process, attacked with machine guns a bus transporting workers from the"IUSA" textiles factory, murdering three trade unionists and leaving eight others seriously injured. According to the communication, these events occurred on Friday, 19 February 1988 at 8 p.m. in the village of San Martín, 20 kilometres from San Salvador. The murdered trade unionists were the following: Custodia de Jesús Rivas, Xenia Marisol López Molina and Rosa Cándida Martínez Marroquín; the seriously injured were the following: María Angélica Mejías, Marta Romero Guillén, Elías Segura Cerón and Hernán Eduardo Contreras (bus driver). All were members of the trade union of that factory. The communication ends by stating that it is up to the Government of El Salvador to guarantee the full respect of human and trade union rights and that it must identify those responsible for violating these rights and judge them, in order to guarantee the safety of its citizens.

&htab;338.&htab;In a communication dated 27 April 1988, the ICFTU denounces the disappearance of the trade unionist Fredy Torres, Secretary of Culture of the Trade Union of Social Security Workers (STISS), who was arrested on 22 April 1988 by heavily armed civilians. His present whereabouts are unknown and he had previously received threats, supposedly from the national police. Not long before he had been held responsible by the Director of the Social Security Institute for the strike carried out at the beginning of 1988 by his trade union and, in the Salvadorian context, such an accusation can bring serious consequences.

&htab;339.&htab;In a communication dated 4 May 1988, the ICFTU states that on 29 April 1988, the trade unionist Adrián Chavarría Girón, Secretary of International Relations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) was murdered in San Salvador. On the same day, there was an attack with explosives against the headquarters of the National Union of Salvadorian Workers (UNTS), which caused serious material damage.

&htab;340.&htab;In a further communication dated 17 June 1988, the ICFTU states that on 8 June 1988, the trade unionist Domingo López Morales, First Secretary of Disputes of the subsection of the building company trade union "José Nuila Fuentes", affiliated to the Trade Union Federation of Salvadorean Workers (FENASTRAS), was riddled with bullets and murdered in front of his family. According to evidence given by his family, the murder was committed on the Nacuilafa estate, in the municipality of Nejapa (18 kilometres from San Salvador) by about 25 persons in uniform.

&htab;341.&htab;The communication adds that on 6 June 1988, the co-operative member José Parada was arrested by soldiers from the Jacuarán batallion, in San Francisco Xavier, in the Department of Usulután. At the time he was arrested, he was in possession of 400,000 colones belonging to the co-operative, which served as a pretext for the soldiers to accuse him of being in contact with the guerrillas in this heavily militarised area. The communication continues by stating that on 29 May 1988, soldiers from the Third Brigade of the army carried outa thorough search in the "GUAYOJO" co-operative, in the municipality of Matapán, in the Department of Santa Ana, 70 kilometres to the east of El Salvador. Three co-operative members were arrested: Rolando Aguirre Areola, Chairman; Eugenio Galdanés and Orlando Areola López, members. They were detained for five days without any charge being brought against them; this search was carried out on the grounds of looking for weapons - but none were found.

&htab;342.&htab;The ICFTU communication further points out that since 12 March 1988, there has been an arrest warrant against four FENASTRAS officials: Gerardo Díaz, Secretary of the Organisation; Antonio Guatemala, Secretary-General of the Banking Workers' Union (SIGEBAN); and Antonio Inglés and Juan Huezo, for alleged attacks against Tadeo Bernal Lizama, Minister of Labour. The communication adds that irrespective of whether the charge is true or not, the arrest warrant against these persons is obviously intended to intimidate them and restrict their trade union activities. The UNTS also denounced that the former command of the armed forces had issued arrest warrants against nine officials of the National Association of Workers of the Supplies Control Institute (ASTIRA), in the Department of Santa Ana. The names of these officials are: Celestino Núñez, Francisco Aguilar, Manuel Pérez Avila, Gilberto Fuentes, Antonio Rivora, Rogelio Guevara, Pedro Benítez, Milton Retana and Oscar Retana.

&htab;343.&htab;In a further communication dated 12 October 1988, the ICFTU makes the following allegations: the arrest on 11 September 1988 in Usulután of the co-operative workers Alberto Olmedo, Bartolo Cornejo, Remberto Hernández Flores, Leonor Peña Sánchez, Antonio Pérez, Sebastián Espinoza, Edwin Andrade and N. Henríquez. Their whereabouts and place of detention are unknown. On 13 September 1988 the premises of the National Union of Salvadorean Workers (UNTS) and the crèche of the FENASTRAS-San Miguelito trade union were searched by the authorities without a warrant. At the UNTS premises all members of theexecutive committee of this organisation were arrested. In the crèche Roberto Campos, Laura Míra and her husband were illegally arrested, along with the student Otoniel Guevara. During demonstrations on the same day, students, teachers, university workers and peasants in San Salvador, Santa Ana and San Miguel were attacked by members of the police forces. On 14 September 1988 the premises of the National Association of Agricultural Workers (ANTA) were searched and 15 personswere arrested without warrant; their whereabouts are unknown.

&htab;344.&htab;The ICFTU adds that on 21 September 1988 in the region of the San Francisco canton in the Department of San Vicente, in the municipality of San Sebastián, ten peasants were assassinated, allegedly by the armed forces. An attempt was made to cover up this event by claiming that it was the result of a supposed clash between peasants and guerrillas. Some eyewitnesses confirm that members of the Fifth Brigade of the Army were responsible for these deaths. The National Union of Peasant Workers (UNOC) held a press conference to denounce these events and to demand that the Commander of the Armed Forces investigate these tragic events and punish the authors of the crimes. The names of the assassinated peasants are: José Atilio Rivas, Zoila Rivas, Jesús Cepeda (father), Jesús Cepeda (daughter), Francisco Alfaro, José Alfaro, Nicolás Flores, José María Flores, Teresa Argueta and Ulises Gibrián.

&htab;345.&htab;In a communication dated 28 June 1988, the Government, referring to the communication from the ICFTU dated 7 March 1988, points out that the accusations are biased since they only refer to cases of violations of freedom of association and human rights allegedly committed by the army, the Ministry of Labour and the Isidro Menéndez Judicial Centre; nevertheless, the ICFTU refrains from denouncing those cases in which FMLN groups have been actively involved. These same groups, by their acts of terrorist violence, undermine the human rights of workers; a case in point was the bombingof a bus transporting workers from the Textiles Industrias Unidas S.A. factory (IUSA) with machine-guns last February, during a transport strike declared by the FMLN. They also undermine economic and social rights by destroying workplaces, thereby destroying the workers' jobs and increasing poverty in their homes. It may also be pointed out that the sources of many of the accusations made by the ICFTU come from the various press media which, in their turn, pass on the information they are given during their constant press conferences by organisations or persons who feel in particular that they are victims of repression; the said media never check whether the information they receive is false or true. This is all part of a campaign by the complainants to distort the truth of what is happening in the country at the international level; they are merely trying to overwhelm various international and governmental bodies with hundreds of accusations and complaints, so that they condemn the Government of El Salvador at various international forums, including ILO meetings. The aim of this behaviour is to mask the actual problems facing the country, the way in which the population is coping with them and attempts made by the Government to overcome them; above all, it sets out to cover up the planners and perpetrators of the criminal and terrorist actions carried out by the FMLN-FDR, with the backing of other governments and international organisations.

&htab;346.&htab;The Government's communication states that as regards the accusations of government repression against trade unions and grass-roots organisations, it should be stressed that the right of all workers to freedom of association is respected in El Salvador; this right is guaranteed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare in application of Decree No. 455 which, in section 12(4) states that the National Labour Department shall be responsible for: "promoting the establishment of worker's trade unions, assisting them to develop and promoting the establishment of collective labour agreements". It is also illogical to hold the Judicial Centre Isidro Menéndez responsible for government repression since this is where the tribunals or courts in the capital are situated. Furthermore, the judges presiding over these courts cannot be considered as perpetrators of repression because they are only civil servants who, under the Constitution, have the power to judge and execute verdicts and their actions are within the framework of the law. Finally, as regards the accusations of repression made against the army, it is necessary to point out that during the past few years, the trade union organisations have set out to create labour disputes, not only with the aim of achieving wage increases but also of destabilising the Government with their political intransigence, by making demands that it is unable to fulfil because of the socio-economic and political crisis prevailing in the country. Furthermore, several organisations have formed an alliance with the FMLN groups; it is for this reason that they have been considered cover groups and their actions part of the FMLN-FDR's destabilisation programmes; this has been proved because secret documents have been seized both from these organisations and FMLN groups. It should also be pointed out that the organisations which declare that they are repressed have - taking advantage of the constitutional right to freedom of speech - resorted to street demonstrations accompanied by violent terrorist acts such as the painting of walls and vehicles, the burning of vehicles, attacks on public and private property, police provocation, etc. Confronted with this behaviour, the role of the army has been to remain vigilant and guarantee the safety of private and public property, as well as that of the population in general. By resorting to such action, these organisations are not only endangering the life of their members but also that of the population as a whole, which has shown its total disapproval of the violent and irrational methods used to promote the trade union cause.

&htab;347.&htab;The Government's communication concludes by stating that suchacts of provocation set out to provoke the army in order to create martyrs so that they might then wage campaigns to distort reality, in which they denounce the Government and the army as violators of Salvadorian human rights - especially those of the working class. A photocopy of observations made by the Ministry of Labour is enclosed, in response to the list of complaints submitted by the ICFTU.

&htab;348.&htab;In a further communication also dated 28 June 1988, the Government refers to the ICFTU communication concerning the arrest of Fredy Torres, the Secretary of Culture of the Trade Union of Workers of the Salvadorian Social Security Institute (STISS). In this respect, it reports that according to a news item in a local magazine, Mr. Torres, known as "Carlos", was arrested on 22 April this year by members of the Fiscal Police on the suspicion that he had committed acts of a terrorist nature, of setting fire to a bus on the No. 29 bus route in San Salvador on 8 April; he was sent to the La Esperanza prison and on 26 April was released by the Sixth Criminal Court of San Salvador as no charges were held against him. The Government encloses a copy of the local magazine containing the above-mentioned news item.

&htab;349.&htab;In a further communication dated 7 September 1988, the Government provides information on the murder of the trade union official Adrian Chavarría Girón, Secretary of International Relations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT). In this respect, it states that given the delicacy of the case in question, an inquiry is at present being carried out by the executive unit of the Criminal Investigation Committee; information on the findings of this inquiry will therefore be communicated in due course.

&htab;350.&htab;The Committee observes that the complainant provides a general picture of the economic, political and social situation of the country and includes in the annex a list of alleged acts of repression carried out between August and December 1987.

&htab;351.&htab;The Committee also takes note of the general information provided by the Government, in particular that the sources of many of the accusations made by the ICFTU come from the various press media which pass on information they are given by persons or organisations claiming to be the victims of repression, without ascertaining the truth of such information. According to the Government, this is all part of a campaign to distort the truth of what is happening in the country at the international level by the complainants who are trying to protect the authors of criminal and terrorist acts carried out by the FMLN-FDR with the support of other governments and international organisations.

&htab;352.&htab;The Committee likewise takes note of the explanations given by the Government regarding the accusations of repression by the Government and the armed forces against trade unions and grass-roots organisations in which it states that in recent years the trade union organisations have set out to create labour disputes, not with the aim of achieving wage increases but of destabilising the Government by means of political intransigence. Some organisations have joined the ranks of the FMLN and act as cover groups and their actions are part ofthe FMLN-FDR's destabilising programmes. As regards the Government's comments, the Committee emphasises the principle that a climate of violence which results in the assassination or disappearance of trade union leaders is a serious obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights; such acts require severe measures on the part of the authorities.

&htab;353.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the arrest of the trade unionist Fredy Torres, on 22 April 1988, on suspicion of having committed terrorist acts, the Committee observes that according to the Government he was released by the Sixth Criminal Court as there were no charges against him. The Committee recalls in this connection the principle that the arrest by the authorities of trade unionists againstwhom no charges are subsequently brought can result in restrictions on trade union rights. Governments should take steps to ensure that the competent authorities receive appropriate instructions to avoid the danger which detention measures pose to trade union activities.

&htab;354.&htab;The Committee takes note of the observations of the Government concerning the assassination of the trade unionist Adrián Chavarría Girón that an inquiry is being carried out by the executive unit of the Criminal Investigation Committee and that the findings of this inquiry will be communicated in due course.

&htab;355.&htab;As regards the machine-gunning on 19 February 1988 of a bus belonging to the IUSA undertaking which resulted in the deaths of the trade unionists Custodia de Jesús Rivas, Xenia Marisol López Molina and Rosa Cándida Martínez Marroquín and which caused serious injury to María Angélica Mejías, Marta Romero Guillén, Elías Segura Cerón and Hernán Eduardo Contreras, the Committee recalls the principle that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement cannot develop in a climate of violence and uncertainty. It is the responsibility of the governments to ensure that basic human rights are respected.

&htab;356.&htab;As regards the allegations made by the ICFTU in a list appended to its communication of 7 March 1988 concerning government repression of trade unions and grass-roots organisations during the period of August to December 1987, the Committee notes the observations of the Government on some of the allegations contained in this list (see Annexes I and II at the end of this case).

&htab;357.&htab;As regards the allegations made by the ICFTU concerning the assassination on 8 June 1988 of the trade unionist Domingo López Morales and the peasants José Atilio Rivas, Zoila Rivas, Jesús Cepeda (father), Jesús Cepeda (daughter), Francisco Alfaro, José Alfaro, Nicolás Flores, José María Flores, Teresa Argueta and Ulises Gibrián on 21 September 1988, the Committee deplores the fact that the Government has not sent any observations on these allegations. It draws the Government's attention to the principle that trade union rights can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against trade unionists and it is for governments to ensure the respect of this principle; furthermore, it recalls that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement can only develop where fundamental human rights are fully respected and guaranteed.

&htab;358.&htab;Finally, the Committee observes that the Government has not provided observations on the following allegations: the arrest on 6 June 1988, of the co-operative worker José Parada by soldiers from the Jucuaran battalion, in San Francisco Xavier, when he was found to be in possession of 400,000 colones belonging to the co-operative; the thorough search for arms carried out in the Guayojo co-operative in the municipality of Matapan, Department of Santa Ana, and the subsequent arrest for five days of the co-operative workers Rolando Aguirre Areola, Eugenio Galdanés and Orlando Areola López; the arrest warrant which has been issued since 12 March 1988 against four FENASTRAS officials: Gerardo Díaz, Antonio Guatemala, Antonio Inglés and Juan Huezo for alleged attacks against the Minister of Labour and the arrest order issued by the armed forces against nine officials of the National Association of Workers of the Supplies Control Institute (ASTIRA): Celestino Núñez, Francisco Aguilar, Manuel Pérez Avila, Gilberto Fuentes, Antonio Rivora, Rogelio Guevara, Pedro Benítez, Milton Retana and Oscar Retana; the ICFTU communication dated 12 October concerning the arrest in Usulután on 11 September 1988 of the co-operative workers Alberto Olmedo, Bartolo Cornejo, Remberto Hernández Flores, Leonor Peña Sánchez, Antonio Pérez, Sebastián Espinoza, Edwin Andrade and N. Henríquez, the search without warrant on13 September 1988 of the premises of the National Union of Salvadorean Workers (UNTS) and the crèche of the FENASTRAS-San Miguelito trade union and the arrest on the premises of the UNTS of all the members of the executive committee of this organisation, the arrest in the crèche of Roberto Campos, Laura Mira and her husband and the student Otoniel Guevara. Nor has the Government made any observations on the search carried out, on 14 September 1988, of the premises of the National Association of Agricultural Workers (ANTA) and the arrest without warrant of 15 persons whose whereabouts are still unknown.

&htab;359.&htab;In the light of the foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee expresses its deep concern once again at the serious and continued nature of the allegations made which refer to the disappearance, assassination, arrest and intimidation of many trade unionists in El Salvador. (b) As regards the arrest of the trade unionist Fredy Torres and his subsequent release after no charges had been brought against him, the Committee would like to point out that governments should take steps to ensure that the competent authorities receive appropriate instructions to avoid the danger which detention measures pose to trade union activities.

(c) As regards the assassination of the trade union official Adrián Chavarría Girón, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the results of the judicial inquiry being carried out and subsequent developments.

(d) As regards the assassination of the trade unionists Custodia de Jesús Rivas, Xenia Marisol López Molina and Rosa Cándida Martínez Marroquín and the serious injuries suffered by María Angélica Mejías, Marta Romero Guillén, Elías Segura Cerón and Hernán Eduardo Contreras, after a bus in which they were travelling was machine-gunned, the Committee expresses its concern at the serious nature of these events and asks the Government to take appropriate steps to prevent the repetition of such acts.

(e) As regards the assassination of the trade unionist Domingo López Morales on 8 June 1988 and of the peasants José Atilio Rivas, Zoila Rivas, Jesús Cepeda (father), Jesús Cepeda (daughter), Francisco Alfaro, José Alfaro, Nicolás Flores, José María Flores, Teresa Argueta and Ulises Gibrián, the Committee requests the Government to have an independent judicial inquiry carried out to determine responsibilities, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of such acts; likewise, to keep the Committee informed of any measures taken regarding the initiation of a judicial inquiry.

(f) Finally, the Committee asks the Government to supply its observations on the following allegations: on the detention, on 6 June 1988, of the co-operative worker José Parada by soldiers of the Jucuaran battalion after he was found in possession of 400,000 colones belonging to the co-operative; on the search for arms of the Guayojo co-operative in the municipality of Matapan, Department of Santa Ana, and the subsequent arrest for five days of the co-operative members Rolando Aguirre Areola, Eugenio Galdanés and Orlando Areolo López; on the arrest warrant which has been issued since 12 March 1988 against four FENASTRAS officials: Gerardo Díaz, Antonio Guatemala, Antonio Inglés and Juan Huezo, for alleged attacks against the Minister of Labour; on the detention order issued by the armed forces against nine officials of the National Association of Workers of the Supplies Control Institute (ASTIRA): Celestino Núñez, Francisco Aguilar, Manuel Pérez Avila, Gilberto Fuentes, Antonio Rivora, Rogelio Guevara, Pedro Benítez, Milton Retana and Oscar Retana; on the communication of the ICFTU dated 12 October concerning the arrest in Usulután on 11 September 1988 of the co-operative workers Alberto Olmedo, Bartolo Cornejo, Remberto Hernández Flores, Leonor Peña Sánchez, Antonio Pérez, Sebastián Espinoza, Edwin Andrade and N. Henríquez, and the search without warrant on 13 September 1988 of the premises of the National Union of Salvadorean Workers (UNTS) and the crèche of the FENASTRAS-San Miguelito trade union and the arrest on the UNTS premises of all the members of its executive committee and the arrest in the crèche of Roberto Campos, Laura Mira and her husband, as well as the student Otoniel Guevara. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the search, carried out on 14 September 1988, of the premises of the National Association of Agricultural Workers (ANTA) and the arrest without warrant of 15 persons whose whereabouts are still unknown. Finally, the Committee asks the Government to send its observations on the allegations contained in Annex I of this case to which it has not yet replied.

&htab;360.&htab;The Committee on Freedom of Association has examined this case on a number of occasions, most recently at its May 1988 meeting, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. [See 256th Report, paras. 255-281, approved by the Governing Body at its 240th Session (May-June 1988).]

&htab;361.&htab;Since then the ILO has received the following communications from the complainants: International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU): 27 May, 16 June, 6 July and 18 August 1988; College of Chilean Teachers: 30 May 1988; National Grouping of Workers (CNT): 14 and 24 June and 25 August 1988; Union of Workers in the "Dos en Uno" foodstore: 17 and 22 June 1988; National Confederation of Federations and Unions of Workers in the Food, Restaurant, Hotel and Allied Trades (CTGACH): 21 July 1988; World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU): 22 August 1988; National Federation of Petroleum and Related Workers of Chile: 7 September 1988; and World Confederation of Labour (WCL): 8 September 1988. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 6 June, 28 July, 24 August, 20 September and 31 October 1988.

&htab;362.&htab;Chile has ratified neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;363.&htab;At its 240th Session in May-June 1988, the Governing Body approved the Committee's recommendations on: the ban on returning to the country imposed on a number of trade unionists, and specifically Rolando Calderón Aránguiz, Hernán del Canto Riquelme and Mario Navarro,in respect of whom the Committee urged the Government to lift the ban and to keep the Committee informed of developments; the restoring of Chilean nationality to trade unionist Luis Meneses Aranda; the legal position of union leaders Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez and Moisés Labraña, in respect of whom the Committee noted with interest the verdict of not guilty handed down by the Santiago Court of Appeal and expressed the hope that they would continue to exercise their trade union rights normally in the future. Lastly, the Committee invited the Government to supply its observations on the allegations on which no reply had yet been received, namely: the communication from the COPESA (Consorcio Periodístico de Chile, SA) Workers' Trade Union No. 1 concerning the dismissal of workers from this union who resisted pressure by the undertaking to persuade them to forgo a cost-of-living pay increase which had been agreed to in a collective agreement made with the undertaking; the complaint submitted by the CTGACH concerningpressure to which workers in this sector are subjected to prevent them from organising, mass dismissals following the signing of collective agreements, the dissolution of unions in this sector, pressure by the undertaking to force workers to sign individual contracts instead of enjoying the benefits stemming from collective agreements, the use of contract labour as a means of avoiding unionisation, and the dismissal of trade union leaders and the situation in unions having members in a number of different undertakings; the complaint submitted by the ICFTUand CNT concerning the dismissal of 17 trade union leaders (including Miguel Muñoz and José Criado of the CNT) and over 100 workers from the State Railway Undertaking for having presented the Government with petitions concerning social and economic claims and for having called a strike when the latter failed to respond; the allegations made by CONTEXTIL concerning difficulties faced by workers in the Curtiembre Interamericana Works Union in reaching a collective agreement with the undertaking and on the unfair labour practices of the said undertaking against the workers involved in the committee working on the draft collective agreement.

&htab;364.&htab;In a communication dated 27 May 1988, the ICFTU expresses its concern at the announcement of the abduction of the journalist Juan Pablo Cárdenas, director of the review Análisis , in Santiago on Wednesday, 25 May when he was entering the prison to serve a 541-day night detention sentence. The letter states that he was violently abducted by heavily armed unidentified civilians and that nothing is known of the present whereabouts of Mr. Cárdenas, who is a member of the Journalists' Association of Chile, of the Latin American Federationof Journalists and of the Chilean Writers' Society. Mr. Cárdenas has been imprisoned on three occasions, charged with insulting and slandering the military government, his review has been suspended and the premises searched by the military authorities several times. The ICFTU's letter adds that in September 1986 the international editor of the review, Mr. José Carrasco Tapia, was kidnapped and killed by an armed group which has still not been brought to justice.

&htab;365.&htab;In a letter dated 16 June 1988, the ICFTU states that trade unionist Freddy Nuñez, assistant General Secretary of the Workers' Central Democratic Organisation (CDT) and director of the "Fuente Alto" paperworks, went to the police of his own free will to report finding a secret chamber in his house in the Quinta Normal district of Santiago which he had been renting out for a long time; the police immediately detained him and kept him in solitary confinement for five days and then released him unconditionally. He was subsequently rearrested and kept in solitary confinement in the Santiago prison, where he had been for 11 days (at the time the letter was written). The military prosecutor was to decide by 15 June whether Mr. Nuñez would be released or remain in prison. The ICFTU's letter expressed concern for the life of this trade unionist since he was in poor health as a result of the long period spent in solitary confinement and the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected.

&htab;366.&htab;In a further communication, dated 6 July 1988, the ICFTU denounces the violent repression by the police of the march organised by the National Grouping of Workers (CNT) to obtain a response from the authorities to their demands. The march was broken up violently and an unspecified number of workers taking part in it were injured and arrested; Mr. Jorge Millán, vice-chairman of the CNT and chairman of the CEPCH (Confederation of Private Employees of Chile) is still under arrest.

&htab;367.&htab;In its letter of 18 August 1988, the ICFTU denounces the sentencing, on 17 August, of Manuel Bustos and Arturo Martínez to 541 days' internal exile. Union leader Bustos was to serve his sentence at Parral, 340 kilometres south of Santiago, and union leader Martínez was to serve his in Chanaral, 960 kilometres north of Santiago. This sentence of internal exile was imposed because these trade unionists had called the strike of 7 October 1987 in support of socio-economic claims. The Court of Appeal had previously closed the case but the military government insisted on bringing it before the Supreme Court, which finally gave this verdict. The vice-chairman of the CNT, Moisés Labraña, was also sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment but was released on parole. These sentences were delivered 48 hours before the holding of the constituent assembly of the new Single Central Organisation of Chilean Workers (CUT), whose main organisers were union leaders Bustos and Martínez.

&htab;368.&htab;In a letter dated 22 August 1988, the WFTU also denounces the sentences passed on the unionists Bustos, Martínez and Labraña.

&htab;369.&htab;In a letter dated 14 June 1988 the CNT explains that with a view to celebrating International Labour Day on 1 May, trade union organisations throughout the country requested permission from the competent government authorities to hold public demonstrations. In most cases these requests were turned down merely on the grounds of keeping public order. In the few cases where permission was granted, the demonstrations were to be held elsewhere than in the places requested, outside the city centres which would be difficult for the workers to get to. In all cases - whether or not permission had been granted to hold demonstrations - the authorities organised an impressive turnout of police forces to intimidate the population or repress the workers' legitimate right to demonstrate. This is how the May Day events that were held in various towns ended up with dozens of persons injured and hundreds under arrest.

&htab;370.&htab;The CNT refers in its letter to events in the town of Iquique, the place selected by the Government for the official May Day ceremony. The official celebrations were presided over by General Augusto Pinochet and were given wide publicity. Vast numbers of people and army forces were transported there from other parts of the country. The Regional Grouping of Workers of Iquique, with due notice, requested permission to organise a public event for workers in the town. The permission was refused in accordance with the terms of a regional military decree banning all public demonstrations, with the exception, of course, of the official one organised by the Government. The workers of Iquique, like those in other towns where demonstrations were not allowed, gathered in the local cathedral to take part in the religious ceremony commemorating San José Obrero [the workers' patron saint] at which Monsignor Javier Prado A, the bishop of the diocese, officiated. Following the service, the workers met outside the church to listen to Arturo Martínez, general secretary of the National Grouping of Workers. Since the official ban meant that no public demonstrations could be held, the workers moved in an orderly manner towards the Regional College of Teachers which, in a gesture of solidarity, had made its union office available for a meeting. On their way to the college, the lines of workers were intercepted and set upon violently by special forces of armed police, who injured and arrested dozens of people. Among these was Julio Prieto Zárate, a worker who was hit by a tear-gas bomb fired from a shotgun, and the director of the radio Iquique FM, Fernando Muñoz Marinkovic, whose arm was broken after he was attacked and beaten with truncheons. As a result of the police repression, only some 150 people managed to reach the union premises to hold the indoor meeting.

&htab;371.&htab;The letter adds that as the meeting was beginning, with greetings from Jorge Pavéz, general secretary of the National College of Teachers, the police burst into the building, breaking doors and windows and letting off tear-gas bombs. They then withdrew, blocking the exits and forming a cordon around the building. This caused panic among the workers and their families who were inside and a disorderly and hysterical attempt to escape ensued. As the building was vacated, the police, who were not content with the material damage they had caused or with their physical and mental aggression, set about beating up and arresting people as they came out.

&htab;372.&htab;The letter goes on to say that the workers in the city of Valparaíso were also prevented from celebrating May Day. The Regional Grouping of Workers requested permission from the government authorities a month in advance to organise an event in the low-lying part of the town which, as is well known, is half surrounded by hills inhabited by workers and port people and which is not easily accessible to those who do not live there because of the physical effort entailed or the cost if public transport is used. The town's social organisations, represented by the "Civic Assembly", supported the petition of the trade union organisations, emphasising that a venue should be determined for the event and that it should not be outside the low-lying part of Valparaíso. The communication states that the workers did not expect any difficulty in securing permission, especially since a public ceremony was to be organised by the regime in the centre of Valparaíso a few days before May Day on the occasion of a visit by General Augusto Pinochet. However, although the authorities granted permission for a public event to be organised by the workers, the only place they could hold it was the Alejo Barrios park on the Playa Ancha hill. The authorisation amounted in fact to a veiled refusal since it would have involved transport costs for the workers to get to the park. The workers consequently decided to organise the event in the Plaza del Pueblo, in the centre of the city. The demonstration was brutally repressed by armed police who were deployed by the Government on an exceptionally large scale: military vehicles were used to attack the crowd with tear-gas and water hoses. The workers' silent and peaceful march to the meeting point, as well as the demonstration itself, were repressed mainly by a hail of rubber bullets (which can be highly dangerous) which injured a large number of workers. Among the persons injured in this way were Mr. Sergio Aguirre Martínez, a member of the executive of the National Grouping of Workers and chairman of the Seamens' Confederation, and Mr. José Gaete, leader of the National Union of Pensioners (UNAP) of Valparaíso. According to the official government report, some 100 persons were arrested, including Alejandro Valenzuela, chairman of the Commercial Workers' Union of Valparaíso and a member of the executive of the regional CEPCH, together with trade unionists Luis Borg and Fanor Castillo. Police brutality reached its height when, in front of witnesses, officers began to torture a youth called González whom they had arrested, beating him about the testicles and stomach, causing almost instantaneous haemorrhage from the mouth. Trade union leaders tried in vain to persuade the police to restrain their violence but the latter replied that they were acting on orders from superiors.

&htab;373.&htab;In a letter dated 24 June 1988 the CNT, after outlining the situation of the trade union movement in Chile, requests the ILO to appoint a direct contacts mission to examine the complaints presented against the Government of Chile.

&htab;374.&htab;In a further communication, dated 25 August 1988, the CNT denounces the arbitrary dismissal of the former president of the Petroleum Workers' Federation and former adviser to the CNT, Mr. José Ruiz de Giorgio. The CNT states that Mr. de Giorgio's dismissal is a repressive measure motivated by his outstanding trade union work and for his having taken over the management of a regional body in favour of the "NO" vote in the forthcoming plebiscite.

&htab;375.&htab;The Union of Workers of the "Dos en Uno" foodstore states that as from the last round of collective bargaining, in June 1986, the employers began to require workers to sign instruments described as "collective agreements" but which are drawn up by the company as it deems fit without the workers being able to discuss the content. This, the complainant states, is obviously a one-sided "agreement". The company writes to each worker, informing him of its intention to establish conditions of work different from those so far governed by the collective agreement and giving them a time-limit within which to go, individually, to the personnel office to sign a new contract. The company offers some fringe benefits (such as food baskets) as an incentive. So far nine such agreements have been signed, all with different dates of entry into force, affecting practically all the workers belonging to the union.

&htab;376.&htab;The letter from the Union of Workers of the "Dos en Uno" foodstore adds that, on 18 May 1988, the union submitted a draft collective agreement but that the company responded by objecting to the participation in the bargaining of 410 out of the 415 members of the union. That is to say it recognised only the five union leaders as agents in the bargaining process. This meant that the statutory quorum could not be reached and, consequently, that this right could not be exercised. The complainant quotes section 294 of the Labour Code which provides that employers and workers may, by mutual agreement, begin direct discussions with a view to signing a collective agreement, as is provided in section 310(2) of the same Code which stipulates that a worker covered by a collective agreement that is still in force may not take part in other collective bargaining before the expiry of the current agreement. The communication adds that the employer (the "Dos en Uno" foodstore) is itself drawing up documents which it describes as collective labour agreements in order to prevent collective bargaining taking place in its establishment. The complainant concludes by stating that the facts are aggravated when the Labour Directorate and its departments go along with this type of manoeuvre, since the Labour Inspectorate of Santiago, in decision No. 111 of 6 June 1988, rejected the objection concerning legality submitted by the union, confining itself to ascertaining the existence of documents which have the appearance of collective agreements.

&htab;377.&htab;In a subsequent communication, dated 22 June 1988, the Union of Workers of the "Dos en Uno" foodstore supplies further information in which it states that, since the number of agreements in the company is growing rapidly, they involve fewer workers each time: agreements that originally covered 180 workers, now cover only 120. Furthermore, the letter goes on to say that since the number of staff will shortly be increased to 1,500 workers, none of the groups covered by the "agreements" will be able to bargain collectively since they will not muster the minimum number required by section 295 of the Labour Code (10 per cent of the total number of workers in the enterprise). Thus not only is the right to bargain collectively being undermined but the exercise of this right is actually being completely obstructed. As an illustration of the labour policy followed by the company, the union explains in its letter that immediately after the lawful 48-day strike in 1986, the company dismissed over 200 unionised workers and replaced them by new staff.

&htab;378.&htab;The letter concludes by requesting the intervention of administrative services coming under the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare to investigate the type of practice that has given rise to the complaint, and the amendment of section 294 of the Labour Code by the addition of certain minimum requirements to safeguard collective bargaining.

&htab;379.&htab;In a letter dated 30 May 1988, the College of Teachers of Chile denounces the fact that on May Day 1988, the workers of the town of Iquique were prohibited by a military decree issued by the Commanderof the region, from holding any public celebration of International Labour Day. On this occasion the ban was especially significant for the workers of Iquique since the Government had selected their town as the centre for its own celebrations of what it termed "National Labour Day". The celebrations marking this event, which was attended by General Augusto Pinochet, were organised on a scale unprecedented in the area: vast numbers of people were transported from all over the country, an official publicity campaign was launched involving the mass media and public sites, and special police forces were brought in from Santiago and other major cities. The vast numbers of police and the enthusiasm of the Government contrasted with the ban on trade union celebrations which prevented the unions from expressing and disseminating the views and claims of the workers. The regional organisation of the National Grouping of Workers had, with the requisite notice, applied to the relevant authorities for permission to hold a public workers' demonstration to commemorate May Day but permission had been refused. Seeing this, the Regional Directorate of the College of Teachers of Iquique, as a gesture of solidarity, made their union premises available to the workers of Iquique and to the Regional Council of the National Grouping of Workers so that this important date could be commemorated, even if only privately.

&htab;380.&htab;The letter states that following a religious ceremony conducted by the Bishop of Iquique in the local cathedral, workers from the congregation walked peacefully to the premises of the RegionalCollege of Teachers. The walk was characterised by its peaceful nature, despite the intimidating effect of the overwhelming presence of police throughout the town. They walked in an orderly manner and almost in silence along the pavements, so that the traffic was not disturbed. During the walk the workers had to endure provocation and aggression by the police, resulting in dozens of arrests and injuries. In particular, the repression involved physical blows and the use of tear-gas bombs fired from shotguns. One of the persons thus injured was the managing director of the local radio station (Radio Iquique FM), Mr. Fernando Muñoz Marinkovic. About 100 men, women and children gathered in the union premises of the Regional College, including teachers and leaders of the Regional Grouping of Workers. The intention was to hold a private ceremony, without microphones and even with the doors and windows closed. At the point when Mr. Jorge Pavéz, general secretary of the College of Teachers of Chile, was speaking, the police forced their way into the building, firing tear-gas bombs directly on the people gathered there and then shutting the doors again. As a result, the workers and their families who were present panicked; fortunately, none lost their lives but dozens were injured. Those who were able to begin leaving the building were struck or arrested by the police and many of the workers were injured physically and psychologically. The damage to the union premises as a result of this police attack was considerable. On the day following these events the Regional Directorate of the College of Teachers, following legal advice from the Iquique Human Rights Committee, brought a criminal charge before the competent criminal court judge, on the following grounds: assault and violation of private property, injuries to third parties and destruction of other people's property. At the same time it lodged a civil claim for damages. Photographs are enclosed with the letter from the College of Teachers of Chile showing the state of the premises following the police action.

&htab;381.&htab;In a letter dated 21 July 1988, sent both to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and to the ILO, the National Confederation of Federations and Unions of Workers in the Food, Restaurant, Hotel and Allied Trades (CTGACH) denounces the discrimination prevailing in the sector, where workers are allowed to work up to 14 hours and more per day although the law lays down a maximum of 12 hours. The letter also states that an investigation of the situation has been requested in view of the pressure exerted by employers in the sector to prevent unionisation but that no reply has been received from the relevant bodies. Moreover, in the complainant's union, particularly in the big hotels, the permanent staff have been replaced by staff from outside the establishment provided by subcontractors, which is detrimental to the trade union organisations as is the manoeuvre of hiring workers on short-term contracts and, at the end of the contracts, drawing up new short-term contracts - a process that can be repeated indefinitely. In addition, the letter states, overt pressure is exerted by the employers when confronted with the process of collective bargaining, which makes the process inoperative. When employers in the sector cannot make use of the permanent staff, the latter are dismissed, sometimes without being paid the amounts due to them, which leads the complainant to affirm that in over 40 per cent of cases in the relevant sector the labour laws are not complied with, labour relations having given way to the "might is right" principle, the workers in this case being the weaker of course.

&htab;382.&htab;The letter from the CTGACH contains a detailed list of enterprises in which the alleged infringements occur: the "Dos en Uno" Foodstore Limited, Conservas Los Reyes, Chocolates Costa, Rocofrut de Curico, the Vegetariano and Prosit restaurants, as well as other establishments in the city. The Confederation concludes by stating that three of its leaders have now been dismissed arbitrarily and that legal proceedings are under way in which the workers' cause has been upheld. It adds that complaints are being made daily to the labour inspection services concerning infringements of this type, with little result, and that the workers in small establishments in the capital and throughout the country have to face layoffs for months on end as a result of which they are forced to drop proceedings against their employers and to emigrate in search of work.

&htab;383.&htab;In a letter dated 7 September 1988, the Federation of Unions of Petroleum and Allied Workers of Chile denounces the infringement of the freedom of association of former trade union leader, José Ruiz de Giorgio, who was chairman of the federation until the end of 1987, during which time he was persecuted on the grounds of his trade union activities. Of his own free will Ruiz de Giorgio gave up his trade union work at the end of 1987 to return to his usual work as captain in the navigating enterprise ENAP-Magallanes. The letter adds that a few weeks ago, when he was speaking in public about a book on labour matters that had come out, he was consulted by the journalist interviewing him on the dismissal of 600 workers in the Magallanes area, about 100 of whom were entitled to a retirement pension. Mr. Ruiz de Giorgio stated that he did not understand the situation since the enterprise ENAP-Magallanes which said that it was overstaffedwas, at the same time, taking on a large number of relatives of the firm's senior executives. He also denounced the fact that for the first time an international contract had been awarded without tenders having been invited, thereby contravening national regulations, and that he was going to request the competent authorities to make an official investigation of the matter. As a result of these statements,he received a written warning following which, on 23 August 1988, he was dismissed without further explanation. The management of the enterprise later explained that he had been dismissed because of the statements he had made; the enterprise was thus passing judgement on him, taking on powers that belong only to the courts.

&htab;384.&htab;In a letter of 8 September 1988 the WCL denounces the fact that since 1973 an anti-social and anti-union policy has been followed in Chile, entailing severe repression of lawful activities by the workers in defence of their interests, such activities being interpreted by the authorities as movements aimed at destabilising the Government. Trade union leaders such as Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez and Moisés Labraña are accused of being agitators and of fomenting illegal strikes and subversive acts, on which grounds they are sentenced. On 21 March 1988 the Second Chamber of the Santiago Court of Appeal, before which these persons had lodged an appeal, overturned the verdict of the court of the first instance. Bustos and Martínez have once again been given a 541-day sentence and Labraña's sentence is for over 200 days' imprisonment. It is clear, the letter states, that the Government wishes at all costs to stifle any trade union activity aiming to establish social justice and freedom of association in Chile and to isolate workers and the leaders of trade unions which are struggling for the welfare of the working masses. The letter concludes by declaring that the sentences are unjust and should be rescinded. The Government should allow trade unionists to go about their trade union activities freely.

&htab;385.&htab;In a letter dated 6 June 1988 the Government states that it has decided to remove 25 names from the list of persons who must obtain prior permission to enter the country; trade unionists Agustín Muñoz and Juan Vargas Puebla are among the 25.

&htab;386.&htab;In a letter dated 28 July 1988, concerning the request by the CNT and the ICFTU for a direct contacts mission to be sent to Chile, the Government states that a study of this request reveals that there are no specific factors which constitute a serious situation as regards trade unionism in Chile. After making general references to alleged infringements of freedom of association, the complainants embark on political considerations which prejudge the legality of the current electoral plebiscite in stating that: "It is feared that the Government, availing itself of its wide discretionary powers, is stepping up and multiplying its activities to repress and restrict human, civil, political and trade union rights". All this, the Government states, does not stand up to objective judgement and shows the ambiguity of the statements that are supposed to support the request for a direct contacts mission. The Government expresses its surprise at this request since the procedure in question is a special one applicable to countries which have repeatedly refused to co-operate with the ILO to resolve cases or to provide information requested of them to shed light on such cases; this in no way corresponds to the attitude of Chile, whose constant co-operation has been appreciated and recognised by the Committee. The Government of Chile wishes to continue its unfailing co-operation. Consequently, the letter states, the request from the National Grouping of Workers has no legal foundation and lacks objectivity. Moreover, the direct contacts procedure, in which an ILO representative is sent to the country in question, must follow the procedure established by the Office itself for the examination of complaints "with a view to seeking a solution to the difficulties encountered, either during the examination of the case or at the stage of the action to be taken on the recommendations of the Governing Body" and in the situation under consideration such difficulties have not been encountered either during the examination of the case or as regards the action to be taken on the recommendations of the Governing Body.

&htab;387.&htab;The Government states further that the procedure also provides that a direct contacts mission "can only be established at the invitation of the governments concerned or at least with their consent" and that the Government of Chile, aware of the ILO's budgetary difficulties, had, on the occasion of the visit of a senior ILO official who is an expert in international labour standards to a neighbouring country, suggested that he visit Chile in order to acquaint himself on the spot with the national trade union situation, offering every guarantee for the widest range of contacts, not only with the authorities, but also with representatives of trade unions. Regrettably, this suggestion could not be carried out and there is no reason, months later, to carry out the request of the CNT, since it is clearly motivated by political considerations aiming to involve the ILO and use its image in an essentially internal political process in which Chile will define its democratic institutional nature providing guarantees for all of its citizens.

&htab;388.&htab;In a communication dated 24 August 1988, the Government refers to the situation of trade union leaders Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez and Moisés Labraña, stating that on 17 August the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice unanimously upheld the appeal lodged by the Ministry of the Interior against these three persons for serious disturbance of the public order provoked by their call for a nation-wide stoppage of work on 7 October 1987; the stoppage of activities (including essential services) and its inevitable result of violence and terrorist acts provoked by the union leaders, is defined in the State Security Act which has been in force since 1958 and has been applied by every Government of the country since that year. The decision of the Supreme Court cannot therefore be considered a violation of the legitimate right to strike enshrined in international labour legislation and fully incorporated in Chilean legislation. This was not a case of activities related to freedom of association, but of acts aimed at disturbing the public order and damaging public and private property.

&htab;389.&htab;The communication states further that it should be noted that this court decision was the outcome of a trial that had lasted nearly 11 months and had been considerably prolonged by the appeals lodged and the delaying tactics employed by the defence council of the accused. It was therefore not based on political considerations, although an attempt was made to find a political motivation citing the fact that these persons had been appointed to the executive of the recently reconstituted Single Central Organisation of Workers. Such a political consideration is not at all in keeping with the independence, traditional conduct and spirit of the national judicial power. The judges of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court merely applied the legislation in force and imposed the penalties laid down for an infringement of legal standards. It should be recalled that the above-mentioned union leaders had been sentenced in the first instance to various terms of imprisonment; that subsequently, the court of the second instance (the Court of Appeal) had given a ruling of diminished responsibility and that, following the appeals procedure, the Supreme Court had decided to uphold the decision of the court of the first instance, but with the sentences substantially reduced: the term of deprivation of freedom (imprisonment) having been replaced by restriction of freedom, that is, internal exile.

&htab;390.&htab;The communication concludes that it should be pointed out once again that this was essentially a case of objective application of the legal standards in force since 1958. The Government had not resorted to administrative procedures, as it is entitled to do during a state of emergency, but, on the contrary, had acted in accordance with its normal standards of conduct, and had turned to the courts (whose decision in the second instance had even been favourable to the union leaders) in order to obtain a verdict on acts contrary to the legal order and the national interest of maintaining internal order and rejecting violence. The rule of law had thus been guaranteed and the accused had been given every opportunity of a fair trial and adequate defence. It must be emphasised that there had been no violation of the right to strike in this case, since this right, which is guaranteed by national legislation, bears no relation to the acts which the courts of law had condemned. Legal strikes follow procedureswhich are clearly laid down in the law and which had not been complied with in this case by those who had called for a stoppage of activities and the wave of infringements consequently unleashed. No civilised society could condone, on the pretext of a distorted application of the principles of freedom of association, explicit calls for criminal acts endangering the life and property of the public, provoking anarchy and bringing essential public services to a standstill.

&htab;391.&htab;In a detailed communication dated 20 September 1988, the Government sends additional information on the legal situation of tradeunionists Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez and Moisés Labraña, indicatingthat Mr. Bustos was indeed sentenced to 541 days' internal exile to thetown of Parral, Mr. Martínez to the same term in the town of Chañaral and Mr. Labraña to a 61-day suspended sentence of imprisonment. Section 35 of the Penal Code provides that "internal exile is transfer of the accused to an inhabited location within the territory of the Republic, being prohibited to leave it but remaining free". This means that the sentence is not one of deprivation of freedom, such as a term of imprisonment, but only one of restriction of freedom of movement to the town of exile. The exiled person may live with his family, work, hold meetings and do anything except leave the town where the sentence is being served. This sentence is served in freedom, as the person is not imprisoned. A suspended sentence, under section 3 of Act No. 18,216 ( Diario Oficial of 14 May 1983), means that the sentence is not carried out in special establishments under police custody. The sentence is not one of deprivation of freedom; a person thus sentenced remains under constant police surveillance by periodically signing a register. Despite the verdict of guilty, the defence counsel of the accused lodged two appeals against the sentence of the Supreme Court. One of the appeals was for clarification and the other for reversal, aimed at obtaining a reconsideration of the decision of 17 August 1988. However, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, by unanimous vote of its five members, rejected the two appeals in a ruling of 30 August 1988, and thus upheld the verdict of guilty handed down on 17 August 1988. The Government encloses a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court and adds that it has no further information to give on this aspect of the case.

&htab;392.&htab;In its communication of 20 September 1988 the Government, as regards the ICFTU communication concerning the arrest and alleged ill-treatment of Mr. Freddy Nuñez, states that on Friday, 3 June 1988, Mr. Héctor Collado, who lives in a rented house at the address San Vicente Street No. 9157, informed the police that, as a result of a landslide causing the tiles covering the terrace to cave in, a secret underground hiding place under the terrace had been exposed. The house which he rents is the property of Mr. Freddy Nuñez. Upon visiting the house, the police discovered 68 containers of mass-produced explosive anti-personnel grenades in the above-mentioned underground hiding place. The tenant, Mr. Héctor Collado, and the owner, Mr. Freddy Nuñez, were arrested that same day, Friday 3 June, by order of the second military prosecutor, in order to carry out an investigation and make a decision as to their responsibility. Under Act No. 17,798, approved in 1972, respecting weapon and explosives control, it is the special courts which are competent to examine offences and infringements of the said Act. On Thursday, 9 June 1988, after conducting interrogations, the prosecutor decided to release Mr. Héctor Collado and Mr. Freddy Nuñez on bail for 60 days; that is, they were prohibited from leaving the country for that period. However, the communication goes on, this did not turn out to be the case for Mr. Freddy Nuñez, as the prosecutor decided to place him at the disposal of the ad hoc prosecutor investigating an attempt to assassinate the President of the Republic, the kidnapping of a lieutenant-colonel in the army and the smuggling of weapons into the country for subversive purposes, hiding them in underground hiding places located in homes in various districts of Santiago similar to that discovered in the house belonging to Mr. Nuñez. The ad hoc prosecutor then interrogated Mr. Nuñez in order to elucidate a presumption that the above-mentioned hiding place had been used to hide army Lieutenant-Colonel Carlos Carreño, kidnapped the year before by a terrorist commando, smuggled out of the country and subsequently freed in Brazil. On 14 June 1988, the ad hoc prosecutor, on the basis of the interrogations of Mr. Freddy Nuñez, ordered the arrest of a couple who had rented Nuñez's house before the present tenant and who were suspected of having taken part in building the secret hiding place where the explosive devices had been found, and on 15 June 1988 the ad hoc prosecutor ordered Mr. Freddy Nuñez's unconditional release, after having interrogated him and ascertained that he had not been involved in building the secret hiding place or in placing the explosive devices found in the house belonging to him.

&htab;393.&htab;The communication contains some observations on this aspect of the case: the motive for the arrest of Mr. Freddy Nuñez and Hector Collado was the discovery of the secret underground hiding place containing explosive devices, in the context of an investigation under way to discover the destination of a large amount of weapons smuggled into the country by a terrorist group. Therefore, it bears no relation to freedom of association or labour rights, since the case comes under criminal jurisdiction, and has nothing to do with rights in the labour field. After investigations had been carried out, Mr. Nuñez was released unconditionally on 15 June 1988; however, the complaint of the ICFTU was made on 16 June and received by the ILO on 17 June. This discrepancy in the dates shows that Mr. Nuñez had already been freed when the ICFTU complained of the physical ill-treatment and danger to his life to which he had been subjected. In press statements, Mr. Nuñez himself said that he was not physically ill-treated and his life was never in danger during his detention. At all events, both Mr. Nuñez and Mr. Collado may take any legal action they deem appropriate to defend their rights if they consider that theyhave been infringed. Lastly, the communication states that Mr. Freddy Nuñez continues to carry out his activities normally and in full freedom.

&htab;394.&htab;The Government's communication refers to the aspect of the case mentioned by the ICFTU in its communication dated 6 July 1988, concerning the arrest of trade unionist Jorge Millán during a march organised by the CNT; in this regard, the Government states that on Thursday 30 June 1988, a female contingent of a de facto organisation running counter to the law in force, whose representativity is not known, since it does not have legal personality, held a march without previous authorisation in the city centre with the aim of achieving a massive gathering of the public in the neighbourhood of the Plaza los Héroes, obstructing traffic in the streets; however, young students of a higher educational establishment, the Instituto Profesional de Santiago, and other minors, began raising barricades in the street, throwing stones at cars and lighting bonfires, making it necessary to deviate traffic into side streets for over one hour and to close the entrances to the "Los Héroes" and "Moneda" stations of the city subway.This public disturbance called for the intervention of the uniformed police, who detained the persons involved. One of those detained was Mr. Jorge Millán, who was taken to the police precinct of the third police station, where he was detained for the statutory period until a decision had been taken on the legal action to be brought against him. On 5 July 1988, Mr. Jorge Millán was released by the police, having completed the statutory period of detention, since the authorities had decided not to instigate legal proceedings against him. All of the other persons detained on 30 June in connection with the same events were released. In press statements, Mr. Millán said that he had been treated well during his detention and that he was returning to his work in a laboratory. The Government would like to draw attention to the fact that the complaint of the ICFTU was presented to the ILO on 6 July 1988, after Mr. Millán and all the other persons detained had been released.

&htab;395.&htab;Another aspect of the case referred to in the Government's communication concerns the situation of Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas, mentioned by the ICFTU in its communication dated 27 May 1988. The Government states that on 25 May 1988 at approximately 10 p.m., as Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas was about to enter the "Centro Abierto Manuel Rodríguez" of the Chilean police, where he was serving a night detention sentence imposed by a court of the Republic, he was detained by police officers of the investigation service at the order of the naval prosecutor of Valparaíso. The reason for his detention by the naval prosecutor was his presumed involvement in committing the offenceof insulting the armed forces, as defined in section 284 of the Code of Military Justice. This offence occurred with the publication of an article in the weekly magazine run by Mr. Cárdenas, edited and signed by Mr. Iván Badilla. Both Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas and Mr. Iván Badilla were placed at the disposal of the court, which ordered their arrest and imprisonment in the Valparaíso public prison. Once the statutory period of detention had expired, the naval prosecutor released Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas on 30 May 1988. As regards Mr. Iván Badilla, the editor of the article considered to have insulted the armed forces, the prosecutor released him on bail on 23 June 1988. Section 284 of the Code of Military Justice provides that "persons guilty of committing an outrage against the national flag, seal or banner shall be sentenced to prison ... and anyone who, verbally or in writing, insults or offends army institutions, units, divisions or forces, or certain classes or corps thereof, shall be sentenced to prison ... or a fine ...". Both Mr. Cárdenas and Mr. Badilla were provided with legal advice by expert lawyers during these proceedings.

&htab;396.&htab;The Government makes the following observations in its communication: neither Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas nor Mr. Iván Badilla are engaged in trade union activities and the reasons for their arrest have nothing to do with trade union activities. Moreover, it is not true that Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas was violently abducted by heavily armed unidentified persons in civilian clothing and that his whereabouts were not known. He had been arrested, states the Government, on a court order by investigating police officers, who had identified themselves and behaved non-violently. He had been taken to the central police headquarters, a public, centrally located and well known place, and had been transferred the same day to the nearby port of Valparaíso to be placed at the disposal of the court which had ordered his arrest; it is not true that special armed commandos arbitrarily arrested Mr. Iván Badilla. According to the Government, his arrest was made at the order of a court investigating a presumed offence and his involvement in it. Those who had carried out the order for his arrest were officers of the investigating police, who had escorted him to central headquarters and later taken him to the port of Valparaíso to place him at the disposal of the court. At no time were the lives or physical integrity of Mr. Juan Pablo Cárdenas and Iván Badilla in danger. Lastly, the Government has no further information to supply on this matter.

&htab;397.&htab;The Government's communication refers to the aspect of the case mentioned by the ICFTU and the Democratic Central Organisation of Workers (CDT) in communications of April 1988 which had remained pending at the last examination of this case (May-June 1988). The Government states that on Wednesday, 6 April 1988, a minority group of workers employed in the railway enterprise (Empresa de Ferrocarriles), specifically 300 workers employed on the southern railways, held a "warning strike" in which they physically occupied the railway junction of the southbound railway, 1 kilometre from the central station, blocking the passage of passenger and freight trains. The objective of the strike, which involved physical occupation of the railway and a 12-hour interruption of railway traffic, was to make the following demands: the resignation of the director of the enterprise, Mr. Roberto Darrigrandi Chadwick; to put a stop to the system of private contractors in the railway enterprise; and that the Minister of Transport and Telecommunications received the striking workers. The Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications considered that pressure and a coercive attitude were unacceptable, especially when the illegal stoppage was only aimed at creating political problems for the Government on the eve of the national referendum. In fact, collective bargaining had been carried out and all of the economic or social demands had been met by the enterprise. Therefore this illegal strike, which was political in nature, cannot be viewed as the outcome of negotiations in the field of labour relations.

&htab;398.&htab;The communication adds that, in view of the fact that this was an illegal work stoppage, which gave rise to problems and caused economic damage to the enterprise, the director of the enterprise, in resolutions dated 11, 15 and 18 April 1988, by virtue of the powers vested in him by the law, dismissed 101 workers who had taken part in the stoppage. The illegal stoppage ended on 29 April 1988 and work was gradually resumed as from 30 April 1988. This illegal stoppage resulted in a loss of income for the railway enterprise amounting to 350 million pesos in the form of freight and passengers not transportedduring the 18-day strike. By 1 August 1988, the enterprise had reinstated 39 of the dismissed workers, after investigating their record. On 18 May 1988, the dismissed workers brought a claim against the enterprise before the Fifth Labour Court of Santiago. The workers were counselled by a lawyer who was a specialist in the labour field. The court issued a first order for conciliation between the parties on 22 July 1988. However, the representative of the enterprise who was present was not empowered to respond to the workers' demands, and no agreement was reached. The court again ordered the director of the enterprise to appear for conciliation on 16 August 1988. However, this attempt at conciliation was also postponed at the request of the enterprise, as the board of directors of the railway enterprise was being set up and it was the latter which was competent to conciliate with the claimants. Lastly, the Government is surprised that it is theCDT which presents accusations of violation of freedom of association, since that organisation expelled its own secretary-general, Mr. Elías Madariaga, for having been a member of the Chilean delegation to the ILO, which does no credit to it as an example of observance of freedom of association. The Government has no other information to provide on this case.

&htab;399.&htab;As regards the allegation presented by the Workers' Trade Union No. 1 of the Consorcio Periodístico de Chile SA (COPESA) which had not been concluded at the last examination of this case, the Government states in its communication that a visit of inspection had been carried out in this enterprise in order to verify the allegations and take measures to correct any irregularities, and a review had been made of the labour and social security regulations governing its employees. It was thus ascertained that the collective agreement concluded between the parties and currently in force is applied in full, including the clause providing for an adjustment of pay due on 31 March 1988, which was paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement. As regards the dismissals referred to in the complaint, they had been carried out in accordance with section 155(f) of the Labour Code, and the persons affected had been paid all of the benefitsto which they were entitled. Since the employment relationship had been terminated, there was nothing for the labour inspectorate to do. The investigation revealed that the employees had not been paid for overtime performed in the past six months, and therefore the employer had been instructed to redress this situation. This had been done by the employer on 25 May 1988, when he paid 6,503,017 pesos to the workers concerned. It was also ascertained that contracts of employmenthad been made in writing and contained the stipulations required by the law and had been duly renewed. Lastly, all of the remuneration had been duly paid in cash to the employees, with a receipt signed by the latter, and there had been no miscalculations or undue deductions.

&htab;400.&htab;The Government's communication also refers to the complaint presented by the National Confederation of Federations and Trade Unions of Textile and Allied Workers (CONTEXTIL) concerning the problems facing workers of the trade union of the Curtiembre Interamericana SA in concluding a collective labour agreement. The Government states that arrangements had been made for a labour inspector to visit the Curtiembre Interamericana SA enterprise with a view to verifying the allegations. During his visit, the inspector ascertained that a group of workers were engaged in collective bargaining and that they had been holding a legal strike since 28 March. In the course of collective bargaining, five workers resigned from the enterprise of their own accord as from 31 March 1988 and signed their resignations on 13 April 1988 in the presence of a notary public. The workers who had held the legal strike resumed normal work on 24 May 1988 at 8 a.m. Lastly, as regards the alleged threats and persecution of workers involved in collective bargaining, the Government states that no complaints or charges on such grounds against the enterprise had been received by the municipal labour inspectorate.

&htab;401.&htab;The Government's communication refers to the complaint presented on 14 June 1988 by the National Grouping of Workers (CNT), which it considers to be a de facto organisation whose representativityis not known, since it has no intention of acquiring legal personality as it is in opposition to the law. The communication of the CNT denounces the incidents which occurred in Valparaíso on 1 May 1988. The Government states in this regard that on 1 May 1988, about 300 persons seriously disrupted the public order in Pedro Montt Avenue fromPlaza 11 de septiembre to Plaza Victoria in Valparaíso by interrupting pedestrian and automobile traffic, throwing leaflets on the public thoroughfare and stones and molotov cocktails at police officers and vehicles. These demonstrations and riots began around noon, following a religious service held in the church of Los Sagrados Corazones. Uniformed police proceeded to restore public order with appropriate personnel and methods; this was only achieved at about 2 p.m.

&htab;402.&htab;As a result of these events, 94 persons were arrested for public disturbances and were placed at the disposal of the Third Local Police Court of Valparaíso, which heard cases Nos. 79,154 and 79,155 and imposed fines and warnings. These persons were released on the same day at the same police station. None of those detained and placed at the disposal of the local police court suffered injuries or contusions of any kind, as was stated in the records, which they themselves signed. The police stations have no record of any injuries inflicted on Mr. Sergio Aguirre Martínez and Mr. José Gaete referred to in the complaint. After a thorough investigation, it was ascertained that Mr. Luis Borg and Mr. Fanor Castillo, referred to by the complainant, were not recorded in the police registers as having been arrested in connection with these incidents. The only person who was arrested for rioting was Mr. Florencio Valenzuela Cortés, who was placed at the disposal of the Third Local Police Court of Valparaíso, together with the other detainees as explained above. The Government has no further information to provide on this matter.

&htab;403.&htab;The Government's communication also refers to the complaint presented by the College of Teachers of Chile and by the CNT in communications dated 30 May and 24 June 1988 respectively, concerning the events which occurred on 1 May 1988 in the town of Iquique. It states that on 1 May 1988 an event commemorating "Labour Day" was being held in the "Casa del Deportista" in the port of Iquique, in the presence of the President of the Republic, the Minister of Labour, diplomatic officials and a large number of workers. Parallel to this, a religious service organised by the CNT was being held in the cathedral of Iquique in Obispo Labbé street, 250 metres from the "Casa del Deportista". The mass ended at 12.30 p.m. and a number of persons gathered outside the church, yelling and shouting slogans against the Government and the armed forces. This group organised themselves to hold a march, clearly intending to pass in front of the "Casa del Deportista", towards the College of Teachers. Faced with this situation, a group of uniformed police warned them not to pass in front of the "Casa del Deportista" in order to avoid a confrontation with government supporters, but to no avail, so that they were obliged to use chemical deterrents in order to disperse the column and check its advance, compelling the marchers to turn into another street. The latter reorganised themselves in four groups and converged from different directions in front of the premises of the College of Teachers, in the middle of the thoroughfare, five blocks from the "Casa del Deportista". About 500 persons gathered there. The police again warned them to disperse, since they were obstructing pedestrian and automobile traffic, but the warning went unheeded, and acts of verbal and physical aggression were committed against police officers, and stones and other contusive objects were thrown. The officer in command was knocked down and beaten on the ground, so that chemical deterrents had to be used again to disperse the crowd. About 300 persons entered the premises of the College of Teachers, from which they shouted insults and threw stones at police officers. During the incidents, tear-gas spread inside the building, so that the occupants had to break the window panes for ventilation and to avoid the ill effects of the gas; these window panes fell outside the building, as was attested by the local officer in command. As a result of the violence of the incidents, 21 persons were injured, including five police officers. The incident was reported to the military prosecutor of Iquique in police report No. 12 of 1 May 1988 of the First Police Commissariat of Iquique, citing assault of policemen on duty. A total of 61 persons who had been involved in the riots were arrested and placed at the disposal of the local police court of Iquique by police report No. 3479 dated 1 May 1988. Of these 61 persons arrested for public disturbances, only three were identified as being teachers. It must be pointed out that the only mission of the police was to maintainpublic order and prevent excesses, and the Government categorically denies that they entered the premises of the College of Teachers in order to cause damage. It should be noted that on 22 April 1988, the regional commander of Tarapacà authorised the organisation called "regional grouping of workers" to hold a meeting marking Labour Day in the Tadeo Haenke sports complex between 10 a.m. and 12 a.m., after which they were to refrain from holding marches or gatherings and wouldbe held responsible for any damage to public or private property which might be caused by the participants either during or after the event. The College of Teachers of Iquique brought a criminal suit against the police for "damage, injuries and breaking and entering" before the Second Law Court of Iquique, under case No. 48,720-2. However, on 6 May, this court declared itself not competent and referred the suit to the military prosecutor, who is conducting it under case No. 140-88. The military prosecutor is also conducting case No. 139-88, on "assaultof police officers on duty". Both cases are now at the indictment stage, and a large number of the persons involved in the incidents have made statements. It is possible that both suits will be merged into one, which would be conducted by the military prosecutor.

&htab;404.&htab;As regards the Managing Director of Radio Iquique FM, Mr. Fernando Muñoz Marinkovic, alleged to have been assaulted and to have sustained fractures in one arm as a result, the Iquique police headquarters reports that this person was admitted to the emergency room of Iquique Hospital at 12.25 p.m. on 1 May, according to medical record No. 14,886, with the following diagnosis: "observed fracture left elbow, medium severity". Verification of police registers shows that no arrest was made or charges brought in connection with this person. In an interview with Mr. Muñoz Marinkovic, the latter stated that he had sustained a fissure in his left elbow as a result of a fallwhich occurred as he was making a news report of the May Day incidents.In suit No. 140-88, which is being conducted by the military prosecutor, police are accused of having damaged the building, pictures and chairs belonging to the College of Teachers. In this regard, teachers Italo Maniello, Javier Morales S., Juan Lima M., and Alicia García T., all of whom hold posts on the regional executive of the College of Teachers of Iquique, when questioned as to the cause of the damage, stated that those who had caused it "were elements participating in the event held by the College of Teachers, for the purpose of blaming the violence unleashed on the police". The persons arrested were released after being summoned to the local police court. It has already been explained to the Committee on Freedom of Association that in proceedings concerning public disturbances, those found guilty are fined small sums by the local police courts. Lastly, the Government has no further information to provide on this case.

&htab;405.&htab;The Government's communication also refers to the complaint presented in communications dated 5 April, 4 May and 21 July 1988 by the National Confederation of Federations and Unions of Workers in the Food, Restaurant, Hotel and Allied Trades (CTGACH) concerning anti-trade union pressure allegedly brought to bear by employers in the sector. The Government states that the Ministry of Labour has ordered an investigation by labour inspectors with a view to verifying compliance with labour legislation in this sector and penalising any infringements found to have occurred. The following enterprises were inspected:

- the Savory-Montt and Company Limited Restaurant;

- the Bali-Hai Restaurant;

- the Vegetariano Restaurant;

- the Carrera Hotel; - the Sheraton Hotel;

- the Copasin Foodstore;

- the "Dos en Uno" Foodstore;

- Marriot Chile SA;

- the Evercrisp Food Products Company.

&htab;406.&htab;The Government's communication on this aspect of the case is fairly detailed and refers, in particular, to registration of attendance, employment contracts, bonuses, social security, dismissals and the trade union situation in these establishments; in the latter connection, the Government states that, as regards allegations of dissolution of trade unions, as the Committee has been aware since 1979, in accordance with the amendments introduced in labour legislation, dissolution of a trade union, federation or confederation may be declared only by judgement of the law courts, in this case, of a judge of the Court of Appeal in whose jurisdiction the trade union is located. Thus, an end was put to the arbitrary practices which had prevailed in the country for over 50 years, and which had consisted in the administrative authorities being able to create and dissolve trade unions at their own discretion and according to their whim. The Government provides the following information on the trade union situation in this sector:

(a) Workers' Trade Union of the Violeta Peebles de Vera Company Limited

Granted legal personality by Decree No. 62 of 13 January 1972 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. Its last trade union executive was elected on 6 July 1981. It has temporarily suspended its activities and has not been dissolved by a court.

(b) Workers' Trade Union of the Claridge Hotel Limited

Legal personality granted by Decree No. 12 of 11 January 1961 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. Its dissolution was ordered by a decision of 31 January 1985 of the Court of Appeal of Santiago on the grounds, provided for by law, that for six months the number of members had fallen below that required for its constitution.

(c) Workers' Trade Union No. 1 of the Waldorff S.A. Restaurant and Rotisserie

This trade union was granted legal personality by Decree No. 509 of 27 May 1971 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. It has temporarily supended its activities; its last executive was elected on 19 November 1982 and it has not been dissolved by a court decision. (d) Workers' Trade Union No. 1 of Somontur Company Limited, Grand Hotel Isabel Riquelme

Legal personality was granted by Decree No. 1385 of 31 October 1972 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. By court decision of 28 November 1984, the Court of Appeal of Chillán ordered its dissolution on the grounds, established by law, that for six months the number of members had fallen below that required for its constitution.

(e) Workers' Trade Union of the CONIN Babyfood Corporation

Legal personality granted on 21 January 1980 upon depositing its founding documents and by-laws with the Provincial Labour Inspectorate of Santiago. The trade union is now operational and active; its last executive was elected on 12 June 1986.

(f) Workers' Trade Union of the Prosit Soda Fountain Limited

Legal personality was granted by Decree No. 560 of 14 April 1972 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. Dissolution was ordered by the Court of Appeal of Santiago by a decision issued on 11 October 1982, on the grounds that for six months the number of members had fallen below that required for its constitution.

(g) Workers' Trade Union No. 1 of the Autogrill Company Limited Restaurant

Legal personality was granted by Decree No. 473 of 4 April 1972 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. It has temporarily suspended its activities; its last executive was elected on 16 December 1982; it has not been dissolved by a court decision.

(h) Workers' Trade Union of the Rincón Alemán Company

Legal personality was granted on 30 June 1986 upon depositing its founding documents and by-laws with the Provincial Labour Inspectorate of Bío-Bío. The latter made observations concerning the by-laws and granted the trade union the statutory period of 60 days to correct shortcomings; when this period expired, the organisation had neither complied nor appealed to the Labour Court; its legal status thus lapsed merely by operation of the law.

&htab;407.&htab;The communication also refers to the dismissals of trade union leaders in this sector: Luis Benítez Galaz, Angel Catalán, Arsenio Angulo and Juan Montalbán. The Government states that, in the case of Luis Benítez, on 12 November 1984 his employer, the Club de la Unión in Santiago, dismissed the leader of the Inter-enterprise Union of Workers in the Culinary Arts, Mr. Luis Benítez Galaz, on the groundsestablished by law, of serious failure to discharge the obligations laid down in his contract. Following a complaint by Mr. Benítez Galaz, on 16 November 1984 the Provincial Labour Inspectorate of Santiago ordered his reinstatement. When the enterprise refused to do this, an administrative penalty was imposed. Mr. Benítez subsequently lodged a claim with the 24th Civil Court of Santiago to declare his dismissal null and void on the ground of trade union immunity. On 31 October 1985, the court handed down its decision to uphold the claimand order that his employment contract be restored and that he be paid remuneration for the period in which he was dismissed, failing which the employer would be ordered to pay the compensation due in respect of his trade union immunity and seniority. This decision was appealed against by the employer, but was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; the latter ruled that there had been no error or miscarriage of justice when the decision had been handed down. On 26 August 1986, Mr. Benítez lodged a petition for compliance with the same court against the Club de la Unión; the proceedings in the case are still under way. As regards the dismissal of trade union leader Mr. Angel Catalán M., the Government states that on 5 May 1986 the latter lodged a complaint with the Municipal Labour Inspectorate of Santiago Sur on the grounds that the COPASIN enterprise where he was employed had not given him any work since 26 April 1986. The Labour Inspectorate ordered the employer to appear on 15 May 1986 for conciliation between the parties. At the meeting, the employer's representative stated that Mr. Catalán had, in a written minute signed in the presence of a notary public, requested unpaid leave from 1 December 1985 to 31 May 1987 and had requested advance payment of the seniority pay to which he was entitled. The representative added that the enterprise had paid him the sum of 149,929 pesos, i.e. half of the above-mentioned benefit, for the period from 1 November 1978 to 3 November 1987. The complainant, Mr. Catalán, stated that until 26 March 1986 he had held the office of secretary-general of the National Confederation of Workers in the Food, Hotel and Allied Trades, and that he had been elected as from that date treasurer of the trade union of the enterprise, which was the reason why he had requested reinstatement, refused by the enterprise. The Inspector called upon the parties to come to an agreement, which, however, was not reached. Mr. Catalán was therefore instructed to lodge a claim against the enterprise with the ordinary law courts. As regards the dismissal of the trade union leader of this enterprise, Mr. Arsenio Angulo, the Government states that Mr. Angulo himself reported that his situation had been settled in 1984 when he signed an agreement with the enterprise under which his contract was terminated in the most complete and reciprocal manner and his employer paid him 60,000 pesos compensation. As regards the situation of the head of the Inter-enterprise Union of the Restaurant and Hotel Trade, Mr. Juan Montalbán R., the Government states that on 18 March 1988 the Provincial Labour Court of Santiago received a complaint from him alleging that he had been dismissed without justification despite is trade union immunity. On 6 April 1988 a labour inspector visited the home of his employer in order to request her to show the legal authorisation empowering her to dismiss the complainant or, in the absence of such authorisation, to reinstate him immediately. However, this did not take place, since the employer was not at home. She was therefore summoned to appear at the Provincial Labour Inspectorate on 7 April 1988. It was a representative who attended the summons, having been given power of attorney to represent the impugned employer. The employer's proxy stated that Mr. Montalbán had not been dismissed and could therefore return to his job. On the same occasion, she presented a request that the leader be stripped of his immunity, submitted to the Labour Court on 21 March 1988. On 8 April 1988, Mr. Montalbán appeared at the Provincial Labour Inspectorate offices and was handed the decision to the effect that he was to be reinstated in his job. On 12 April 1988 Mr. Montalbán once again appeared at the Labour Inspectorate and statedthat he had been assaulted by his employer's son and thrown out of the establishment. He had reported these events to the local police station. He also pointed out that he had required medical attention in the emergency room as a result of the injuries he had sustained. In view of these events, the impugned employee was summoned to appear on 14 April 1988 at a hearing which Mr. Montalbán was to attend as well, as he was told verbally at the time. However, only the employer appeared on 14 April 1988. In view of the fact that the worker concerned neither attended the hearing nor persisted in his complaint, no further action was taken, on the assumption that he had taken his case to the law courts, which are the only courts competent to try and give judgement on the presumed offence of assault and battery.

&htab;408.&htab;The Government's communication also refers to the situation of the workers employed in the "Dos en Uno" Foodstore Limited, stating that an inspection carried out by a labour inspector had confirmed that a lawful strike had been held between 5 May 1986 and 23 June 1986 in the enterprise in the context of collective bargaining. Staff reductions carried out in this enterprise bore no relation to the collective bargaining process or to the lawful strike. The workers affected were paid the statutory compensation due.

&htab;409.&htab;In a further communication dated 31 October 1988, the Government refers to the dismissal of the trade unionist José Ruiz De Giorgio, stating that he was dismissed from the National Petroleum Company (ENAP) by virtue of section 155(f) of the Labour Code of 1987. This section states that the employment contract shall be terminated in the following cases:

(f) Written renunciation by one of the parties which must be given to the other with at least 30 days' notice, with a copy to the respective Labour Inspectorate. Nevertheless, this prior notice is not necessary when the employer pays the worker compensation in cash equivalent to his last monthly wage.

&htab;410.&htab;The Government states that the National Petroleum Company indicated that, rather than giving up Mr. De Giorgio's employment contract, it had exercised the right - which cannot be waived - provided for by law to the parties so as to enable the employment contract to be terminated at the wish of only one side without it being necessary to give justification or any further reasons for its exercise. On 27 August 1988, Mr. De Giorgio brought court proceedings against the National Petroleum Company with a view to obtaining the payment of the compensation and benefits due to the Company's actions, claiming payment of compensation for termination of contract and years of service and renunciation. By acting in this way, the procedural correctness behind this dismissal relied on by the Company was recognised. On 5 September 1988, Mr. De Giorgio reached a judicial agreement with the Company granting him full settlement and release of the two court cases concerning the Company: one case for the recuperation of wages and other monetary benefits in respect of which it was agreed that the employer pay the amount of 892,905 pesos; and the other case for the recuperation of compensation for years of service and renunciation in respect of which it was agreed that the Company would pay 14,875,714 pesos, an amount equivalent to approximately US$65,000 (the Government's communication encloses copies of the judicial agreement and a memorandum concerning the liquidation of ENAP property dated 26 September 1988).

&htab;411.&htab;The Government adds that on 7 September 1988, Mr. De Giorgio, using the advice of a specialist lawyer lodged, by virtue of article 20 of the Constitution, an appeal for protection against the Company before the Appeal Court of Punta Arenas. This appeal alleged that his dismissal was unlawful and arbitrary. The Court agreed to receive the appeal and heard the parties on 22 and 26 September 1988. In an unanimous decision, the Court rejected the appeal brought by Mr. De Giorgio and thus confirmed the legal and procedural correctness of the dismissal. On 27 September, Mr. De Giorgio's lawyers brought a further appeal before the Supreme Court against the decision of the Appeal Court; the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed the verdict of the Appeal Court of Punta Arenas. It was thus completely clear that the dismissal of Mr. De Giorgio was carried out legally and in accordance with the law.

&htab;412.&htab;As regards the allegation that Mr. De Giorgio had been dismissed as a reprisal for his trade union activities, the Government states that since 30 October 1987, Mr. De Giorgio no longer held any trade union post since he had not been elected to office in his first-level union. This meant that at the time of his dismissal under section 155(f) of the Labour Code, Mr. De Giorgio had, for over ten months, not been involved in trade union activities or held a post as trade union representative.

&htab;413.&htab;As regards the ban on entering the country imposed on a number of trade unionists, the Committee notes that the Government has decided to remove 25 names from the list of such persons, including trade unionists Agustín Muñoz and Juan Vargas Puebla. It also notes with interest Presidential Decree No. 303 of 1 September 1988 which putan end to all administrative bans on entering the country arising from the state of emergency. In this respect, it requests the Government to supply information on whether this decree applies to Mr. Rolando Calderón Aránguiz, Hernán del Canto Riquelme and Mario Navarro.

&htab;414.&htab;As regards the legal situation of trade union leaders Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez and Moisés Labraña, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that the sentence of internal exile (Bustos and Martínez) and the suspended sentence (Labraña) were handed down as the result of judicial proceedings and were not dictated by political considerations arising out of the appointment of these trade unionists to the executive of the recently constituted Single Central Organisation of Workers. The Committee also observes that the reason for the verdicts against the trade union leaders was their having called for a stoppage of activities on 7 October 1987 in order to make socio-economic claims. The Committee, having examined the reasons for the sentence, nevertheless recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their economic and social interests. This right does not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also all problems of direct concern to the workers. The Committee notes with concern that sentences of internal exile and a suspended sentence have been imposed on these trade unionists under the State Security Act for having called a strike and recalls the principle that the detention and sentencing of workers' representatives in connection with activities related to the protection of the workers' interests infringes the free exercise of trade union rights.

&htab;415.&htab;As regards the allegations presented by Workers' Trade Union No. 1 of the Consorcio Periodístico de Chile SA (COPESA) concerning pressure brought to bear by the enterprise so that the trade union members would renounce the cost-of-living increases stipulated in collective agreements, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that an inspection revealed that the current collective agreement was fully complied with, that the employer has paid overtime and that all remuneration has been duly paid. It also observes that, according to the Government, the dismissals of the persons mentioned by the complainant were carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Code. At all events, the Committee recalls that the Fact-finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association has emphasised that satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on the attitude of the parties towards each other and on their mutual confidence. It also considers that in cases in which it clearly appears that the dismissal of a worker was based on his trade union membership or activities, it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is accorded by legislation which enables employers to so act on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal.

&htab;416.&htab;As regards the complaints presented by the National Confederation of Federations and Trade Unions of Workers in the Food, Restaurant, Hotel and Allied Trades (CTGACH) concerning alleged anti-union pressure brought to bear by employers on workers in the sector, the Committee notes the detailed information sent by the Government on inspections carried out in the establishments mentioned by the complainant and covering various aspects of labour relations in this sector. It also notes the information supplied on the dismissals of trade unionists Luis Benítez Galaz, Angel Catalán, Arsenio Angulo and Juan Montalbán and the resulting judicial proceedings. In this regard, the Committee would emphasise that, besides preventive machinery to forestall anti-union dismissals (such as, for example, a request for the prior authorisation of the labour inspectorate before carrying out a dismissal), a further means of ensuring effective protection could be to make it compulsory for each employer to prove that the motive for his intention to dismiss a worker has no connection with the worker's union activities.

&htab;417.&htab;As regards the dismissal of 83 workers and 17 trade union leaders in the State Railway Enterprise because of a work stoppage on 6 April 1988, the Committee observes that the Government maintains that this stoppage was held for political reasons and the complainant maintains that it was motivated by a failure to reply to socio-economicclaims. The Government states that 39 of these dismissed workers were reinstated on 1 August 1988 and that the remaining dismissed workers had instigated judicial proceedings against the enterprise. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the occupational and economic interests which workers defend through the exercise of the right to strike do not only concern better working conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking of solutions to all the problems which are of direct concern to the workers. The Committee has also concluded that when trade unionists or union leaders are dismissed for having exercised the right to strike, they have been punished for their trade union activities and have been discriminated against.

&htab;418.&htab;As regards the complaint presented by the National Confederation of Federations and Trade Unions of Textile and Allied Workers (CONTEXTIL) concerning the difficulties faced by workers belonging to the trade union of the Curtiembre Interamericana enterprise, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the inspection carried out by a labour inspector, who ascertained that the workers were engaged in a collective bargaining process and that they had been holding a lawful strike since 28 March; the Government also stated that no complaints had been lodged with the municipal labour inspectorate regarding unfair practices of the enterprise against the workers engaged in collective bargaining. In this regard, the Committee recalls the importance which it attaches to the principle that both employers and trade unions should bargain in good faith and make every effort to come to an agreement.

&htab;419.&htab;As regards the alleged abduction of journalist Juan Pablo Cárdenas, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that this was not an abduction, but an arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by a court investigating a presumed offence, that the arrest was made by the investigating police, and that the life or physical integrity of Mr. Cárdenas was at no time in danger.

&htab;420.&htab;As regards the arrest of trade union leader Mr. Freddy Nuñez, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the arrest of Mr. Nuñez bears no relation to his trade union activities, but was motivated by the discovery of explosives and a secret chamber in a house belonging to him. It also notes that Mr. Nuñez was released unconditionally by the ad hoc prosecutor on 15 June 1988, that he suffered no physical ill-treatment during his detention and interrogation and that he is now freely engaging in his activities.

&htab;421.&htab;As regards the arrest of trade unionist Jorge Millán on the grounds of a march organised by the National Grouping of Workers (CNT), of which he is the vice-chairman, the Committee observes that, according to the information supplied by the Government, his arrest was the result of a public disturbance caused by this march, and that he was apparently released by the police after having completed the statutory period of detention, without any legal proceedings having been instigated against him. In this regard, the Committee would emphasise the principle that the arrest by the authorities of trade unionists concerning whom no charges are subsequently brought is liable to involve restrictions on trade union rights. Governments should take steps to ensure that the authorities concerned have appropriate instructions to eliminate the danger which such detentions have for trade union activities.

&htab;422.&htab;As regards the events which occurred in the towns of Iquique and Valparaíso during the May Day celebrations, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that police intervention was due to the public disturbances which occurred in both towns. As regards the alleged arrest of trade unionists Mr. Luis Borg and Mr. Fanor Castillo, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that these persons had not been entered in police registers as having been arrested in connection with these incidents. Neither had trade unionists Sergio Aguirre Martínez and José Gaete beenrecorded in police registers as having been injured. The Committee also notes the fact that the College of Teachers of Chile lodged a criminal complaint against police officers for damage, injuries and breaking and entering at its premises in Iquique and that another suit had been brought for assault of police officers. In this regard, the Committee would recall that while trade unionists must observe legal provisions aimed at maintaining public order, the public authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict the right of trade unionists to organise and hold their meetings freely; and that the right to organise public meetings and processions on May Day constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights.

&htab;423.&htab;As regards the complaint presented by the workers' trade union of the "Dos en Uno" foodstore, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government following an inspection made by a labour inspector, who ascertained that a lawful strike had been held between 5 May and 23 June 1986 in connection with collective bargaining, and that staff reductions bore no relation to the collective bargaining process or to the lawful strike. In this regard, the Committee points out that mass dismissals of workers following a strike cannot be considered as an isolated event, and can lead to the conclusion that workers have been punished for their trade union activities and have been discriminated against.

&htab;424.&htab;As regards the dismissal of the former trade union leader Mr. José Ruiz De Giorgio by the National Petroleum Company, the Committee takes note of the information presented by the Government to the effect that the dismissal took place under the legal provisions of the Labour Code and that all employment benefits were paid to him in accordance with the law. The Committee also notes that Mr. De Giorgio brought an appeal for protection before the Appeal Court alleging that his dismissal was illegal and that this was unanimously rejected by that Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Committee reiterates the principle that it expressed in paragraph 415 above.

&htab;425.&htab;Lastly, the Committee notes that the Government has not supplied full information on the dismissal of a number of workers from the State Railway Enterprise and the 17 union leaders due to a strike there. The dismissed leaders are: José Criado, chairman of the National Federation of Railway Workers; Germán Díaz, secretary of the Federation; Miguel Muñoz, its secretary-general; Ceferino Barra, chairman of No. 1 Union; Juan Díaz, secretary of that union; Rafael Rivera, its treasurer; José Ortega, director of No. 1 Union of Santiago; Guillermo Munizaga, also director of that union; Hugo Salinas, treasurer of the No. 1 Union of San Bernardo; Oscar Cabello, also director of that Union; Tito Ramírez, secretary of Trade Union No. 4 of Santiago; Juan Contreras, chairman of the No. 5 Traction Union; José Morales, secretary of that Union; Orlando Ganona, treasurer of that Union and Iván Orellana and Luis Pradenas, both directors of that Union.

&htab;426.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee notes that the Government has sent detailed replies to most of the allegations outstanding in this case.

(b) As regards the ban on entering the country imposed on various trade unionists, and in the light of Presidential Decree No. 303 which terminated the administrative bans on entering the country, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether the unionists Rolando Calderón Aránguiz, Hernán del Canto Riquelme and Mario Navarro have benefited from the terms of this Decree and on developments in the trial concerning the reacquisition of Chilean nationality by the unionist Luis Meneses Aranda. (c) The Committee notes with concern the sentencing to terms of internal exile and suspended sentence handed down against trade union leaders Manuel Bustos, Arturo Martínez and Moisés Labraña and stresses that the arrest and sentencing of trade union leaders for activities related to the defence of their members' interests infringes the free exercise of trade union rights; it requests the Government to keep it informed of any change in the legal situation of these union leaders.

(d) As regards the further arrest of the journalist Juan Pablo Cárdenas, the Committee notes that he was released on 30 May 1988, when his detention reached the maximum period allowed by law, and requests the Government to inform it of the present legal situation of Mr. Cárdenas, in particular to indicate whether court proceedings are under way for the suspected acts for which he had been held.

(e) As regards the arrest of trade union leader Freddy Nuñez, the Committee expresses the hope that in the future he will be able to continue his trade union activities normally.

(f) As for the detention of the trade union leader Jorge Millán because of a march organised by the National Grouping of Workers (CNT), the Committee deplores, in general, this type of measure since the arrest of trade union leaders against whom no charges are subsequently brought restricts the exercise of trade union rights; it requests the Government to make adequate provision so that the competent authorities receive instructions with a view to eliminating the danger which this type of detention holds for trade union activities.

(g) As regards the incidents in Valparaíso and Iquique because of May Day celebrations, the Committee expresses its concern at the way in which International Labour Day festivities in both towns were disturbed and notes the contradictions existing between the complainants' allegations and the Government's observations on what happened in the two towns. It requests the Government to inform it of the decision in Florencio Valenzuela's case and on the court proceedings initiated by the College of Teachers of Iquique and by the police, respectively, which are being investigated by the military prosecutor.

(h) As regards the allegations presented by the Workers' Trade Union No. 1 of the Consorcio Periodístico de Chile SA (COPESA), the Committee notes that the Government inspected the labour company's documentation and found that the collective agreement in force was being fully applied; nevertheless, the Committee considers that in cases in which it clearly appears that the dismissal of a worker was based on his trade union membership or activities, it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is accorded by legislation which enables employers to so act on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal.

(i) As regards the alleged threats and persecution of workers in the Curtiembre Interamericana company who were involved in collective bargaining, the Committee notes that these workers did not present complaints to the labour authorities about these alleged actions; it, however, requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the bargaining proceedings.

(j) As regards the various allegations presented by the CTGACH, the Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government, but would request specific observations on the alleged anti-union practices in this sector such as employer pressure to obstruct unionisation, unfair labour practices when trying to get bargaining rounds under way, mass dismissals of workers when they try to organise; as for the dismissal of trade union leaders Luis Benítez (Inter-enterprise Union of Workers in the Culinary Arts), Angel Catalán (Workers' Union of the COPASIN company) and Juan Montalbán (Inter-enterprise Union in the Restaurant and Hotel Trade of the Metropolitan region), the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the court proceedings they have brought for their reinstatement.

(k) As regards the allegations presented by the Workers' Trade Union in the "Dos en Uno" foodstore, the Committee would repeat that the mass dismissal of workers following a strike cannot be considered as an isolated event, and can lead to the conclusion that workers have been punished for their trade union activities and have been discriminated against.

(l) As regards the dismissal of former trade unionist José Ruiz De Giorgio, the Committee reiterates the principle expressed in subparagraph (h) above.

(m) As regards the dismissal of a number of workers and 17 trade union leaders in the State Railway Enterprise after a strike, the Committee notes the Government's statement that on 1 August 1988, 39 of the 101 dismissed were reinstated and requests the Government for information on developments in the court proceedings brought by the dismissed workers and on the possible reintegration of the 17 dismissed trade union leaders.

&htab;427.&htab;The Committee has examined this case on four previous occasions - in May 1986, May and November 1987 and most recently in May 1988, when it submitted interim reports to the Governing Body [see 244th Report, paras. 337 to 356, 251st Report, paras. 373 to 398, 253rd Report, paras. 302 to 327, and 256th Report, paras. 282 to 309, each approved by the Governing Body]. Since then, the Government has sent a detailed reply, dated 20 June 1988, to the allegations submittedin this case and the complainant sent additional information in a letter of 9 September 1988.

&htab;428.&htab;Nepal has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;429.&htab;The allegations in this case refer to (1) refusal, since 1980, by the authorities to register the Nepal National Teachers' Association (NNTA); (2) refusal by the Minister of Education to enter into negotiations with the NNTA, whereas two new government-controlled teachers' unions had been set up; (3) repressive actions by the authorities, including the death of the following seven district officers of the NNTA at the hands of the police in 1985: Mr. Gandir Shrestha, shot to death on 19 May 1985; Mr. Tanka Bhushal (of the Argha Khanchi district), died after having been beaten by police at his home; Mr. Min Bar Chand (of the Baitadi district), beaten to death at a police station; Mr. Abikeshar Bharati (of the Jhapa district), found dead outside his village; Mr. Mahendra Tadav (of the Sirha district), shot at his home by bandits known to be in the employ of a local landlord; Mr. Suresh Shar Burja (of the Myagdi district), shot by persons employed for purposes of intimidation by a member of the legislature and Mr. Ram Dev Pandit (of the Dhanusa district), who fell ill in prison, was refused medical treatment, released in extremis and died before reaching hospital; detention for over two years of eight NNTA leaders; police interference in the NNTA second national conference and mass arrests of demonstrating teachers. The complainant organisation supplied a list of 61 named teachers allegedly dismissed because of their trade union activities and a list of 35 named teachers allegedly transferred for such activities.

&htab;430.&htab;In its communication of 25 May 1987, the Government denied the allegations contained in the NNTA's complaint, stating that they were baseless and malicious and were intended to malign the Government. It admitted, however, that it had set up an ad hoc committee to draft a constitution to form a teachers' association for the promotion of teaching and academic work, career development and protection of the rights and interests of teachers, within the parameters of the Constitution and the law of the land, that this committee was chaired by a Member of Parliament and that it had drafted the constitutions of two associations, the Nepal National Primary Teachers' Association and the Nepal National Secondary Teachers' Association, which had been approved by the Government, and that central-level ad hoc committees had been constituted to set up the primary- and secondary-level teachers' associations as envisaged in the newly drafted constitutions. On the other hand, the Government denied that any teacher had been imprisoned on the grounds of his or her educational or academic pursuits.

&htab;431.&htab;In a subsequent communication dated 30 July 1987, the WCOTP alleged that the police hindered the activities of its Asian Regional Representative while he was in Kathmandu and prevented the holding of its affiliate's third national conference, scheduled for 25-27 June 1987, at which 185 NNTA delegates had been expected. In addition, the WCOTP cited a newspaper report of the Minister of Education's statementin Parliament to the effect that any organisation other than the newly formed Nepal National Primary Teachers' Association and the Nepal National Secondary Teachers' Association would be illegal under section 6 of the Act of the year 2018 BS of the Nepalese calendar, which prohibits the creation of associations parallel to already registered ones, quoting the same Minister as threatening "strong action" against those planning a conference on 25-27 June and indulging in activities banned by law.

&htab;432.&htab;The WCOTP also supplied a list of 72 teachers arrested in connection with the holding of the third national conference of the NNTA in June 1987 and stated that the first arrests of teachers in connection with this conference began as delegates from outlying areas were preparing to leave their homes a week before the conference. According to the WCOTP, teachers were seized, confined to cells where there was no room to lie down and refused food. The WCOTP stated further that on 25 June, an attempt by the police to enter the NNTA office was frustrated by a gathering of local people, that the premises on which the conference was to be held were surrounded by police but that the conference had finally taken place at an undisclosed location. The conference was alleged to have been peaceful and attended by Members of Parliament, representatives of parents, students, professional associations and the press, and to have elected a national executive committee.

&htab;433.&htab;In a more recent communication dated 16 December 1987, the WCOTP stated further that Mr. Sushill Chandra Amatya, a founder member of the NNTA, was still in prison four months after his arrest. It also supplied a list of nine named teachers who were leaders of the NNTA and were arrested in November 1987, and added that repression continued; that the salaries of teachers with NNTA connections were not paid; and that government officials were visiting every school, threatening and pressing teachers to join the two associations formed by the Government.

&htab;434.&htab;In a communication dated 29 January 1988, the Government reiterated its previous statements and affirmed that the constitutions of the two associations of primary and secondary teachers had been dulyapproved by the Government on 12 February 1987 in accordance with the National Guidance Act of the year 2018 BS of the Nepalese calendar, and that these constitutions had been adopted after discussions at a meeting of the teachers' representatives from all of the 14 zones of Nepal.

&htab;435.&htab;It admitted, however, that persons, who, it stated, no longer belonged to the teaching profession had opposed these two associations; these were Mr. Devi Prasad Ojha and Mr. Sita Ram Maskey and a handful of others, and that these persons had submitted the constitution of their Association in the year 2036 BS of the Nepalese calendar, but the constitution had not been approved by the Government because it made no provision for representation of primary-school teachers, and because these teachers were vehemently opposed to it and had made an application for a separate association of their own. The Government added that these persons had tried to sow the seeds of discontent in the teaching profession and that they had misled some of their colleagues, declaring themselves to be members of committees which they had secretly constituted.

&htab;436.&htab;Nevertheless, the constitutions independently prepared by the secondary- and primary-school teachers from all of the 14 zones of Nepal had been warmly welcomed by the entire community of teachers, and a large number of teachers who were once the supporters of the constitution of the teachers' association were now serving as members of the ad hoc committees formed pursuant to the approved constitutions of these two associations, stated the Government.

&htab;437.&htab;It concluded that these two associations had as one of their aims that of electing office-bearers, and that district-level committees had been constituted in nearly half of the districts through democratic means. Elections of trade union leaders at both levels had taken place among the teachers. The so-called NNTA leaders were, on the other hand, according to the Government, only self-declared leaders. Nine of them, including a general secretary, had in a joint declaration denounced the so-called NNTA for publishing their names as leaders of the NNTA without their prior knowledge, and had disassociated themselves from the "association". The Government confirmed, however, that it had not authorised the holding of a conference by the so-called NNTA in June 1987, as this association was illegal.

&htab;438.&htab;At its May 1988 Session, the Governing Body approved the following interim conclusions of the Committee:

(a) The Committee regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the allegations were made, the Government has supplied only general observations on this case and that it has not yet replied to several specific and extremely serious allegations.

(b) The Committee recalls that workers' organisations should have the right to draw up freely their own constitutions and rules without interference from the public authorities.

(c) The Committee urges the Government to supply detailed information on any judicial inquiry that might have been carried out into the alleged deaths of teacher trade unionists at the hands of the police in 1985, to state the charges brought against the eight named trade union leaders of the NNTA, to give explanations of the violent occupation of premises and confiscation of NNTA property in May 1985, and to state whether the teachers arrested in June and November 1987, as well as trade union leader Sushill Chandra Amatya have been released.

&htab;439.&htab;In a lengthy and detailed communication dated 20 June 1988, the Government supplies specific and precise information and observations on different aspects of the complaint lodged by the WCOTP in this case.

&htab;440.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the refusal of the authorities, since 1980, to register the Nepal National Teachers' Association (NNTA), the Government explains that the authorities had to refuse registration of the NNTA for the main reason that this association, from the beginning of its formation, engaged itself in politically motivated activities rather than in academic and professional activities for which it was created, that some of the leaders of the NNTA are established political activists and that because of its anti-Government stance, its policy of confrontation with the Government and its provocative activities, the NNTA was refused registration and recognition by the Government. Therefore, according to the National Guidance Act of 2018 BS of the Nepalese calendar, the so-called NNTA was declared illegal.

&htab;441.&htab;The Government states that it does not have a policy of favouritism or discrimination since, except for the NNTA, all other professional organisations, associations and unions in Nepal (such as the Engineers' Association, the Doctors' Association, the University Teachers' Association, the Students' Union, the trade unions, class organisations, labour organisations) have been registered indiscriminately under existing laws of the land and that they are allowed to function freely within the parameters of the Constitution, for the promotion and the defence of their occupational interests. The NNTA, continues the Government, is the only association that has been denied registration, because of its subversive activities and because it violated professional ethics by misleading the teachers' associations and by carrying out activities contrary to what it had been created for. Any government reserved the right to deny, suspend or dissolve any association if it carried out subversive activities.

&htab;442.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the refusal by the Minister of Education to enter into negotiation with the NNTA, whereas two new government-controlled teachers' unions had been set up, the Government replies that it was not the Government which had been adamantly opposed to negotiating with the NNTA, but that it was the NNTA itself which had not been interested in bargaining. However, the Government states that on many occasions it had invited the NNTA for talks regarding issues concerning teachers. In 1982, when the teachers went on strike, the Government had taken the initiative to negotiate with the NNTA, with the result that the three-month-long strike had been called off. In 1984, the Government had taken another initiative. The NNTA was led by the then President, Mr. Janak Pyakurel, and the Government was represented by the Home Minister. Unfortunately, the negotiations failed. Following the failure of negotiations, the teachers loyal to the Government started organising themselves and formed an association under the name "Pragik Samgosthi" (Academic Association of Teachers) which had extended to 50 out of the 75 districts of Nepal. However, the Government was not happy with this development. What it really wanted was the creation of a strong, dynamic and independent teachers' association capable of safeguarding its due rights, promoting its occupational interests and making a substantial contribution to achieving the national goals in education.

&htab;443.&htab;Again, the Government admits having taken the initiative to constitute an ad hoc committee to draft constitutions for teachers. However, it explains that these constitutions were to be more democratic and broad-based, more realistic and acceptable for teachers. At the Government's request, the NNTA Central Executive Committee meeting was held on BS 2043.8.27 of the Napalese calendar (corresponding to 11 December 1986). This Committee decided to send five of its members to represent the NNTA to the constitution drafting committee. These were Mr. Bimal Koirala, acting president of the Central Committee of the NNTA; Mr. Kameswor Prasad Singh, vice-president; Mr. Kali Prasad Pokharel, acting vice-president; Mr. Ghana Shyam Poudel, secretary; and Mr. Mohan Narayan Shrestha, a member of the NNTA. There were also 12 other teachers representing private schools, female teachers from primary and secondary schools all over the country, two people's representatives from the National Legislature and two government officials (merely to facilitate and expedite the work entrusted to them, explains the Government). The proportion of teachers represented was thus 17 out of 21. Therefore, according to the Government, the new constitutions were drafted and adopted virtually by the teachers and for the teachers without making any provisions in the new constitutions for the Government to control the newly formed teachers' associations, the Nepal National Secondary Teachers' Association (NNSTA) and the Nepal National Primary Teachers' Association (NNPTA).

&htab;444.&htab;The members of the drafting committee, continues the Government, took into consideration the wish of primary-level teachers to form and join their own association since they had had one in 1973, to be free from the domination of secondary teachers in order to protect their own rights and to promote their interests. It was agreed to create two separate teachers' associations. Therefore the creation of two teachers' associations was neither artificial nor unprecedented. The Government's role was limited to calling the first meeting and encouraging the teachers to proceed further on their own. They were never interfered with or controlled either by the Government or by any other outside agency.

&htab;445.&htab;Under the new constitutions, the elections of the district-level executive committees and delegates to the national conference were conducted in 70 of the 75 districts in Nepal. In the remaining five districts, which are the remotest in Nepal, elections are to be held in July 1988. According to the ad hoc central committee, 85 to 90 per cent of teachers belong to the new associations. The rapid growth of both the secondary and primary teachers' associations is evidence of the teachers' faith in the new constitutions and their trust and confidence in the new union leadership. The first national conference under the new constitutions is planned to be held in October 1988 and 550 delegates from all of the districts of Nepal are expected to attend. Some leaders and members of the NNTA have joined the new associations. They are Mr. Bimal Koirala, former acting president; Mr. Kameswor Prasad Singh, former vice-president; Mr. Ghana Shyam Poudel, former secretary, and four members of the central executive committee of the NNTA, Mr. Mohan Narayan Shrestha, Mr. Oba Bahadur Dange, Mr. Bisam Dutta Bhatta and Mr. Mrigendra Subedi, who, having joined the new teachers' associations, won the elections in their respective districts.

&htab;446.&htab;On the other hand, explains the Government, other members of the NNTA central executive committee, Mr. Sitaram Maskey, Mr. Kul Prasad Nepal, Mr. Gore Bahadur Khapangi, Mr. Parsu Ram Khapung and Mr. Chudamni Upadhyaya, no longer belong to the teaching profession. According to the Government, the facts cited explain that the allegations made against the Government are false and baseless.

&htab;447.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the death of teacher unionists at the hands of the police in 1985, the Government replies that they are completely unknown to it. It notes that the WCOTP has given the names of the teachers allegedly dismissed, transferred or arrested, but has not given the names of the teachers killed. According to the Government, it is ridiculous that allegations of such magnitude and seriousness as the death of six unionists while in police custody are made without further specification, while incidents of much less importance are detailed and specified. The Government states further that any person with common sense can therefore see that the allegation is not only false and baseless but is also intendedto malign the Government, which is not a dictatorship but a government of the people based on the principles of social justice and equity.

&htab;448.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the detention for over two years of eight NNTA leaders, the Government states that it has not detained any teacher for over two years in connection with the teachers' movement or activities. If any teacher is being detained, it is not for his professional activities but for state offences. Thus, even Mr. Debi Ojha, former general secretary and one of the critics of the Government, was released last year following negotiations with the NNSTA and is moving freely to present his case, without any success up to now. Not a single person in the teaching profession is in detention now, affirms the Government.

&htab;449.&htab;As regards the allegation of police interference in the second national conference of the NNTA and mass arrests of demonstrating teachers, the Government states that any government would interfere to stop unauthorised and illegal meetings, conferences or demonstrations. According to the Government, any such arrests are only of a preventive nature. It recalls that the second national conference of the NNTA was being held without any previous authorisation, although the existing laws of the land require previous approval by the authorities for unregistered associations or organisations to hold meetings or conferences.

&htab;450.&htab;As regards the allegation of dismissals and transfers of teachers, the Government admits that it has dismissed teachers, but claims that this is not because of their trade union activities, but for other undesirable non-professional activities. It adds that it pays the salary of the teachers for teaching in the schools and that if any of them, instead of teaching in the schools, engage in other activities and use the school as a forum for the realisation of their personal interests or political ideology, the Government has, in such cases, no other option than to take necessary action against such teachers. However, according to the Government, the negligible number of teachers who had been dismissed or transferred and who, having realised their mistake, wished to rejoin their schools, have been reinstated.

&htab;451.&htab;As regards the allegation that the new teachers' associations are artificial because they were created by the Government, the latter denies that this is so and once again affirms that they are, on the contrary, most representative, since the overwhelming majority of teachers are members of them. It is the NNTA, according to the Government, which is artifical and cannot claim to be a teachers' association since the self-declared leaders, such as Mr. Debi Prasad Ojha and Mr. Sitaram Maskey, who are no longer in the teaching profession, are standing for the NNTA illegally, along with a handful of followers. The Government considers that they are fighting desperately in a losing war.

&htab;452.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the arrest of 72 teachers who were detained in cells with no place to lie down and denied food, the Government considers that there can be no more false and baseless allegation than this. It states that not even the most heinous criminal in detention is denied food to eat and a place to lie down, not to mention teachers, who are the intellectuals of the country.

&htab;453.&htab;The Government concludes with observations on the conclusions and recommendations made by the Committee of the ILO on this case. In general, it regrets that the information supplied in its communication dated 25 May 1987 was found inadequate. It also deplores the fact that the WCOTP, which is a reputed international organisation of the teaching profession, believed, without examining them, whatever complaints its affiliate, the NNTA, dispatched to it. The Government explains that it found the complaints so malicious and baseless that it did not deem it worth while to give its observations on them. However, the Government is sorry that its silence has jeopardised the decision of the Committee on Freedom of Association. It is also sorry to note that the Committee has been obliged to examine the case in the absence of specific and detailed information.

&htab;454.&htab;In particular, the Government gives its assurance that it never takes any action of reprisal against anybody. It affirms that it cannot be irresponsible. Therefore, no members of the NNTA need feel insecure. The Government maintains that it has not infringed the basic principle of freedom of association, that it has not created teachers' associations without their consent, and that teachers are free to choose their leaders, to follow any line of action and amend their constitutions according to their needs.

&htab;455.&htab;As everybody knows, explains the Government, in Nepal, two Members of Parliament, Mr. Sarad Singh Bhandari and Benu Prasad Prasai, who were in the constitution drafting committee, were great critics of the Government and strong advocates of teachers' rights at the time of drafting of the constitutions. What is important, according to the Government, is not who drafted the constitution but what is contained in it and how free the teachers are to defend their rights and promote their interests. A comparative study with previous texts would show that the new constitutions are broader-based, containing provisions for the representation of private schools and female teachers and that they have more democratic provisions for membership, election to office and for a greater representation in district and national-level assemblies. They are also more realistic and acceptable than the constitution adopted by the NNTA in the year 2036 BS of the Nepalese calendar.

&htab;456.&htab;Another example of freedom of movement and action of teachers under the new constitutions is that, as soon as the central ad hoc committee was formed in 1987, it presented eight demands to the Government. One of its demands was the immediate release of all teachers in detention and reinstatement of teachers transferred or dismissed. Abiding by the demand, the Government released all teachers, including Mr. Debi Ojha, and the teachers dismissed or transferred have been reinstated in the districts of Morang and Sunsari. Only Mr. Sushill Chandra Amatya and Mr. Sitaram Maskay (the latter was a candidate in the last general election but lost) are in detention, not for union activities but for offences against the State.

&htab;457.&htab;As regards the recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association to set up a judicial inquiry to investigate the alleged death of six district officers of the NNTA, the Government states that it cannot take up the case unless the so-called NNTA specifies when and where they were killed.

&htab;458.&htab;As regards the alleged police raid on the premises of the NNTA and confiscation of union papers on 17 May 1985, the Government explains that the police only dispersed the crowd that gathered there on that day, but did not break into the union's office and did not confiscate union papers.

&htab;459.&htab;Lastly, the Government states that it is willing to welcome an ILO representative to Nepal to see if ILO standards and principles on freedom of association are met.

&htab;460.&htab;In a letter of September 1988, the WCOTP states that Sushill Chandra Amatya and Chabi Chandra Dhakal are still detained, Raj Prasai was arrested by the police and that several teachers have been dismissed and transferred.

&htab;461.&htab;The Committee notes all of the information, observations and denials of the Government in reply to the complainant's allegations of the refusal, since 1980, by the authorities to register the Nepal National Teachers' Association (NNTA) and to enter into negotiations with it, government interference in drafting the constitutions of the new associations and the artificial nature of these associations, police intervention in the second national conference of the NNTA and the violent death, arrests, detention, dismissal and transfers of trade union activists and leaders in the education sector. In the light of the information available, the Committee notes that the versions given by the complainant and the Government are contradictory.

&htab;462.&htab;As regards the Government's refusal to register the NNTA, theCommittee notes that, according to the Government, this association is alleged to have adopted an anti-Government attitude from the outset and to have refused to enter into consultation with it on issues involving teachers in 1984. The Committee also notes that the Government admits that in 1982, after a three-month-long teachers' strike, the Government itself had taken the initiative of bargaining with the NNTA.

&htab;463.&htab;In the Committee's opinion, the fact that the Government had at first negotiated in 1982 with the NNTA, which had supported a three-month-long teachers' strike, and that it was later unable to enter into negotiations with the same association in 1984, did not entitle the Government to declare this association illegal and to support the setting up of two new associations which it considered more "realistic".

&htab;464.&htab;The Committee considers that, by placing one organisation at an advantage or disadvantage in relation to the others, a government influences the choice of workers regarding the organisation to which they intended to belong. It follows that acting in this fashion infringes the principle laid down in Convention No. 87, according to which the public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict the rights provided by this instrument or impede the lawful exercise thereof, and, more indirectly, the principle that the law of the land must not impair or be so applied as to impair the guarantees provided for in the Convention. [See, in particular, 197th Report, Case No. 913 (Sri Lanka), para. 323 and 211th Report, Cases Nos. 1035 and 1050 (India), para. 115.]

&htab;465.&htab;In the present case, the Committee considers that the authorities' refusal to recognise the NNTA on the pretext that the 1984 negotiations failed constitutes a violation of freedom of association and of free collective bargaining in that this refusal impairs the right of teachers wishing to belong to this association to join the trade union association of their choice for the defence of their economic, social and occupational interests and the right of the NNTA to promote and defend the occupational interests of its members.

&htab;466.&htab;As regards the dismissals and transfers of trade union activists and officers who maintained relations with the NNTA and took part in the strikes, the Committee notes that the Government acknowledges that it carried out dismissals, but explains that it pays teachers to teach and not to uphold their ideology in the schools.

&htab;467.&htab;First, the Committee has always considered that no one should suffer prejudice in his or her employment on the grounds of trade union membership and, more particularly, on the grounds of membership in the trade union of his or her choosing. In this case, the Committee considers that the anti-trade union dismissals and transfers affecting teachers who are members of the NNTA, who had participated in strike movements, constitute in themselves a violation of freedom of association.

&htab;468.&htab;Secondly, the Committee recalls that a strike is one of the essential means which workers, including those in education, should have in order to promote and defend their occupational interests.

&htab;469.&htab;While it welcomes the fact that some teachers have been reinstated in their posts, the Committee urges the Government to make every effort to obtain the reinstatement of all the teachers dismissed.

&htab;470.&htab;As regards the arrest and detention of trade union activists and officers, the Committee notes that the Government states that it has not detained any teacher within the last two years in connection with the teachers' movement or activities. It does, however, admit that teachers have been arrested, because they had committed offences against the State. It also affirms that, following the requests made by the Committee, it has released all of the teachers, including Mr. Debi Ojha, and that only Mr. Sushill Chandra Amatya and Mr. Sitaram Maskay are still being detained.

&htab;471.&htab;The Committee has, on several occasions, insisted on the importance which it attaches to the fact that, in every case, including those in which trade unionists are accused of political or criminal offences which the Government considers to be unrelated to their trade union activities, the persons in question be promptly tried by an impartial and independent judicial authority.

&htab;472.&htab;In this case, the Committee regrets that the Government has limited itself to stating in general terms that the officers of the NNTA are well-known political activists, with an anti-Government attitude, who have pursued a policy of confrontation and provocation with respect to the Government, and to adding that only two of them are still being detained, not for trade union activities but for offences against the State, without specifying the specific acts on which such charges are based.

&htab;473.&htab;The Committee considers that the fact of having led strike movements in the education sector cannot, in itself, constitute a state offence. The Committee therefore trusts that the persons concerned will be released in the near future.

&htab;474.&htab;As regards the death of seven trade unionists alleged by the complainant, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it is unable to conduct an inquiry into this aspect of the case unless the NNTA specifies where and when these persons are alleged to have been killed. The Committee recalls that the detailed allegations of the complainant are contained in paragraph 353 of the 244th Report and paragraph 381 of the 251st Report of the Committee, approved by the Governing Body at its May 1986 and May 1987 Sessions. The Committee again requests the Government to supply its observations on this aspect of the case.

&htab;475.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee recalls the importance which it attaches to the principle that workers, including teachers, should be able to form trade unions of their own choosing, without previous authorisation, for the defence of their economic, social and occupational interests.

(b) The Committee also recalls the importance of strikes as an essential means which workers, including teachers, should have for the defence of their occupational interests. (c) The Committee accordingly urges the Government to recognise the National Nepal Teachers' Association (NNTA) since the declaration of illegality concerning this association appears to be unfounded and it has been requesting registration since 1980.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that all of the teachers who supported the setting up of the NNTA and took part in strikes in the education sector since 1980 be reinstated in their posts and to communicate detailed information on the manner in which it has carried out these reinstatements.

(e) The Committee also requests the Government to ensure that all detained teachers are released or promptly tried by an independent judicial authority. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this connection.

(f) The Committee lastly urges the Government promptly to supply its observations on the detailed allegations of the complainant contained in the WCOTP's communications of 5 July 1985 and 3 April 1987 concerning the death of seven trade unionists in the education sector.

&htab;476.&htab;The Committee has already examined this case on three occasions, the last being at its February 1988 meeting, when it presented an interim report. [See 254th Report, paras. 351-369, approved by the Governing Body at its 239th Session.] Since then the Government transmitted certain information and observations in a communication dated 30 April 1988, received in the ILO only on 20 May 1988. Subsequently, in a letter dated 30 May 1988 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented new allegations.

&htab;477.&htab;Paraguay 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).

&htab;478.&htab;The allegations which remain outstanding in this case relate to the detention of trade union activists and leaders whose names are supplied by the complainants, to violent repression of peaceful trade union demonstrations, and to acts of interference and pressure exerted against trade union organisations and their leaders.

&htab;479.&htab;In particular the complainants referred to the climate of violence and repression affecting the trade union movement in 1986 and 1987 in the hospital, banking, transport, press, teaching and agricultural sectors.

&htab;480.&htab;The complainants referred to the questioning of doctors during a strike which took place on 25 April 1986 at the Clinicas Hospital (namely Dr. Carlos Filizzola and Messrs. José Bellasaï, Ursino Barrios, Anibal Carrillo and Juan Masi), the ban on 1986 May Day celebrations, the subsequent violent repression and large number of persons injured by the forces of order and taken to hospital, the attacks perpetrated on 3 May by some 150 militants of the Colorado party who were authorised to enter a hospital and are said to have struck doctors and nurses who were attending the injured, and, lastly, the destruction of the Ñanduti radio station by the same group on the ground that this radio supported the workers and their organisations during the trade union demonstrations. Subsequently the complainants stated that the doctors who had been arrested during the strike had been released for lack of evidence of their having committed an offence.

&htab;481.&htab;The complainants also referred to a police attack on the headquarters of the Federation of Bank Employees (FETRABAN) in April 1986, and again in March 1987, and to the detention for a number of days in March 1987 of the General Secretary of the Workers' Inter-Trade Union Movement (MIT), Mr. Victor Baez, during a meeting of his organisation. Mr. Baez was subsequently released.

&htab;482.&htab;The complainants also alleged that in March 1987 Raquel Aquino, leader of secondary-school students, was held at the Pastor prison for having expressed her solidarity with the trade union movement, and that Margarita Cappuro de Seiferheld, the leader of the MIT, was obliged to give up her post as philosophy teacher at the national girls' college since she was forbidden to teach.

&htab;483.&htab;In addition the complainants denounced the arrest, in October 1985 at Tacumbu prison, of Mr. Sebastián Rodríguez, General Secretary of the Bus Drivers' Union (Route No. 21), for having organised a music festival to collect money on behalf of his unemployed colleagues, and the arrest of trade union leader Marcelino Corazón Medina, on 20 September 1985, then from 1 May to 3 June 1986 and again from 27 February to 30 May 1987, at Ononnondivepa, where he was tortured.

&htab;484.&htab;Subsequently, in a communication of 23 October 1987, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) stated that on 20 October 1987 the police used violence to prevent the holding of a general meeting of the National Union of Construction Workers, violently charging the members and injuring a large number who had to be rushed to medical stations.

&htab;485.&htab;The Government did not reply to the repeated requests concerning the serious allegations made against it by the complainant organisations. Consequently, in the absence of a denial of these allegations on the part of the Government, the Committee could only conclude that there had been serious violations of the principles of freedom of association in respect of these various complaints.

&htab;486.&htab;In these circumstances the Governing Body, on the recommendation of the Committee, adopted the following interim conclusions at its February 1988 Session:

(a) The Committee strongly regrets that the Government has not replied to the repeated requests for information sent to it. It expresses its serious concern at the allegations in respect of repression of the trade union movement in 1986 and 1987 and, in particular, the arrest of trade union militants and leaders named by the complainants, the ban on peaceful trade union demonstrations on May Day which were violently repressed, and the interference in the affairs of trade union organisations and pressure brought to bear on them and on union members.

(b) The Committee recalls that a free and independent trade union movement cannot develop in an atmosphere of insecurity and fear.

(c) The Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the authorities concerned are given appropriate instructions to eliminate the danger for trade union activities represented by such measures as the arrest of trade unionists, the banning of trade union demonstrations on May Day and the holding of trade union meetings.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to guarantee respect for freedom of association in law and in fact, in accordance with the obligations arising from Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, ratified by Paraguay, and to keep it informed of these measures, in particular stating whether judicial inquiries have been undertaken following the repression which took place on hospital premises on 3 May 1986, in order to determine who is responsible and to punish the guilty parties.

&htab;487.&htab;In a telegram dated 30 May 1988, the ICFTU alleges that the following agricultural workers' leaders were arrested: Marcelino Corazón Medina, Pedro Gamana, Carmelino Torales, Acadio Flores and Teodoro González. Furthermore, Fidencio Rojas, General Secretary of the Union of Workers of Fenix SA, is said to have been threatened by the security guards of the enterprise for which he works.

&htab;488.&htab;In a letter dated 30 April 1988, which reached the ILO on 20 May 1988, the Government supplied information on some of the outstanding allegations.

&htab;489.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the arrest of Marcelino Corazón Medina in 1985 and again in 1987, and the torture to which he is said to have been subjected, the Government acknowledges that he was prosecuted in 1985 and 1987 for infringing Act No. 209 concerning defence of the public peace and individual freedom but affirms that, contrary to what the complainants maintain, he was not tortured and that at all times the authorities treated him in accordance with the law. According to the Government, Mr. Medina enjoys full freedom in the country although he is a notorious agitator who passes himself off as a trade unionist of a fictitious union called the Committee of "Agricultural Producers" or of "Landless Peasants".

&htab;490.&htab;As regards the allegation concerning the arrest in 1986 of Mr. Sebastián Rodríguez, former General Secretary of the Bus Drivers' Union (Route No. 21), the Government states that Mr. Rodríguez is no longer employed by the undertaking, that he no longer belongs to the union and that he is not detained. According to the Government, he was dismissed and has lodged an appeal with the courts.

&htab;491.&htab;As regards the detention in 1986 of Dr. Carlos Filizzola and of José Bellasaï, Ursino Barrios, Anibal Carrillo and Juan Masi in the Clinicas Hospital affair, the Government states that these persons are public employees and that Dr. Filizzola led public demonstrations with a view to forcing the authorities to grant pay increases.

&htab;492.&htab;Going into further detail, the Government adds that the hospital in question is a university hospital coming under the faculty of medicine of the National University of Asunción and that, as such, it is financed from the national budget. The Government states that it had moreover, when budgetary resources permitted, granted considerable pay increases to the workers in this hospital who are public employees and consequently fall outside the scope of the Paraguayan Labour Code (section 2) but are covered by Act No. 200/70 in respect of the public service.

&htab;493.&htab;Nevertheless, the Government goes on to say that under the leadership of Dr. Filizzola these public employees persisted with pay claims that were not in line with the percentage authorised by the Government under the general budget for 1986 and that their claims werenot submitted through the lawful channels and relevant institutions, i.e. by means of the citizens' right of petition. Instead they took the form of a street disturbance. Faced with this situation the policewere obliged to intervene to restore public order and social peace.

&htab;494.&htab;The Government adds that Dr. Filizzola was involved in criminal proceedings that were brought against him before the Criminal Court of First Instance of the Ninth Chamber by a certain Eladio Ramón Penayo and that he was charged with having infringed Act No. 294 concerning the defence of the democracy and Act No. 209/70 concerning the defence of the public peace and individual freedom, issued under section 99 of the Code of Penal Procedure. In Ruling No. 677 of 17 December 1986, the judge, having considered the evidence in the case, ordered that Dr. Filizzola be held in preventive detention and then, in a further ruling (No. 715 of 23 December 1986) lifted this measure. At present, the Government states, Dr. Filizzola is freely exercising his profession as a doctor and enjoys his full rights as a citizen.

&htab;495.&htab;The court rulings concerning this case are enclosed with the Government's communication. It can be seen from these rulings that Dr. Filizzola was accused by one of the participants in the demonstration of 28 November 1986, Mr. Penayo, of instigating the overthrow of the Government, of describing the President of the Republic, General Alfredo Stroessner, as a dictator and of systematically imposing communist doctrine by creating divisions between citizens, together with disturbances, agitation and other destabilising activities. According to Mr. Penayo, Dr. Filizzola had written that "we find ourselves in a situation of grave political and economic crisis under this dictatorship that has been in force for 32 years", a statement which Mr. Penayo considers absurd since, according to him, free and democratic general elections are held in the country periodically. Dr. Filizzola is also said to have stated that "dialogue is not for any dictatorship; dictatorships are not open to dialogue with anyone. Consequently we must realise that what is essential now is to mobilise to overthrow the dictatorship". According to Court Decision No. 677 of 17 December 1986, Dr. Filizzola incurred a sentence of five years' imprisonment for instigating an armed uprising against the constitutional authorities in order to replace the republican democratic system in force by the communist system (section 1 of Act No. 294 concerning the defence of democracy) and for spreading communist doctrine (section 2). Under this Act, where offences are committed by means of the press, radio, etc., the publication, radio programme, etc., are suspended for between one and six months and closed down if the offence is repeated (section 8).

&htab;496.&htab;Nevertheless, in Ruling No. 715 of 23 December 1986, communicated by the Government, the judge decided, after studying the evidence in the case, that there was insufficient proof to change the preventive detention to a prison sentence and ordered Dr. Filizzola's release.

&htab;497.&htab;As regards allegations concerning the ban on the holding of May Day celebrations in 1986, the Government strongly refutes the complainants' allegation that the demonstration was repressed and that there had been casualties.

&htab;498.&htab;As regards the allegations that members of the Colorado party struck doctors and nurses who were treating injured persons on 3 May 1986 in the Clinicas Hospital and that they destroyed the Ñanduti radio station on the ground that this radio supported workers and their organisations in their trade union demonstrations, the Government makes no comment on the first allegation but recognises that the Ñanduti radio transmitter was closed down on the decision of the national telecommunications administration. It denies, however, that militants of the Colorado party destroyed the Ñanduti radio staton as maintained by the ICFTU. It affirms that the radio premises are in perfect condition and are being used by the opposition for broadcasts in which numerous persons take part, including representatives of outside political parties.

&htab;499.&htab;As regards the complaint of the Workers' Inter-Trade Union Movement (MIT) that Margarita Capurro de Seiferheld, leader of the MIT, was forced to give up her teaching post at the girls' college, the Government explains that this penalty was imposed solely because of irregularities that had been committed by this person in the course of her duties, contravening teaching standards and the national provisions in respect of education, as stated by the Ministry of Education and Religion.

&htab;500.&htab;As regards Mr. Victor Baez, General Secretary of the MIT, who is said to have been detained for a number of days in March 1987 during the meeting of his organisation, the Government firmly denies that he was detained on 18 March 1987. It explains that he was merely summoned to appear before the chief of police for public order in the capital for questioning concerning acts which had disturbed public order and peace since he had claimed to "disregard the legal authorities of the country" and had "shown disrespect for social standards", which has nothing to do with his struggle to defend trade union interests. According to the Government, creating disturbances in the streets and upsetting the minds of peaceful citizens is not how one defends the workers' trade union interests. Once the formalities for which he had been summoned had been completed, he left the police premises on the decision of the authorities and not because of pressure exerted from inside or outside by the ICFTU. At no time was he kept in a police cell; nor was he detained for as long as the complainants alleged.

&htab;501.&htab;As regards this trade union leader, the Government also states that he is exercising his civil rights as is proven by the fact that in 1987 and 1988 he was able to go to Rio de Janeiro and to Europe as well as to the World Congress of the ICFTU in Australia, that his militant activities take place in public and that he is a member of an opposition political party of fascist origin.

&htab;502.&htab;The Committee takes note of all the information and observations furnished by the Government on some of the allegations still outstanding in this case.

&htab;503.&htab;The Committee nevertheless observes that the Government has not commented in detail on several serious allegations made against it by the complainants, especially concerning the incidents said to have taken place at the Clinicas Hospital on 3 May 1986, that it has not denied that some members of the Colorado party, on hospital premises, struck doctors and nurses who were tending patients injured by the forces of order when a trade union demonstration was repressed; moreover, the Government has furnished no information on the allegation concerning the arrest in March 1987 of Raquel Aquino, a secondary-school students' leader, said to have been detained in the Pastor prison for having expressed her solidarity with the trade union movement.

&htab;504.&htab;Finally the Government has not commented in detail on the ICFTU's allegations dated 30 May 1988 that several agricultural workers' leaders (whose names are given), including Marcelino Corazón, were again arrested in May 1988 and that the General Secretary of the Union of Workers of Fenix SA were threatened by the security guards of the undertaking.

&htab;505.&htab;As regards the points on which the Government has supplied detailed replies, the Committee observes, firstly, concerning the agricultural workers' leader Marcelino Corazón Medina, that the Government recognises that he was prosecuted in 1985 and 1987 for infringing Act No. 209 concerning the defence of public peace and individual freedom but has not supplied information on the actual offences he is said to have committed. The Government merely states that this person is a notorious agitator who tries to pass himself off as a trade unionist in a fictitious trade union organisation.

&htab;506.&htab;In a number of cases where the complainants alleged that workers or trade union leaders had been arrested for trade union activities, and the government replies amounted to general denials or were simply to the effect that the arrests were made on the grounds of subversive activites, for reasons of internal security or for common law crimes, the Committee has followed the rule that the governments concerned should be requested to submit further and as precise information as possible concerning the arrests, particularly in connection with the legal or judicial proceedings instituted as a result thereof and the result of such proceedings, in order to be able to make a proper examination of the allegations. [See Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO, para. 115.]

&htab;507.&htab;In the present case, since Act No. 209 concerning the defence of public peace and individual freedom permits the imposition of prison sentences for offences based on one's opinion, and in view of the fact that, according to the ICFTU's allegations, the agricultural workers' leader Marcelino Corazón Medina and four of his companions were again arrested on 18 May 1988, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the actual charges brought against these leaders, to communicate the court judgements in the case with the grounds adduced therefore, if they have been sentenced, and to state if they have now been released.

&htab;508.&htab;The Committee observes, secondly, that the Government has not commented in detail on the allegation that Mr. Sebastián Rodríguez, former General Secretary of the Bus Drivers' Union (Route No. 21) was arrested in 1986, but has confined itself to stating that this person is not detained, that he is not employed in the undertaking and that he no longer belongs to the union. The Government does, however, acknowledge the fact that he was dismissed and has appealed against his dismissal to the courts.

&htab;509.&htab;The Committee recalls, in general, that no person should be discriminated against in his employment because of his trade union membership or lawful trade union activities and that appropriate measures should be adopted to guarantee the free exercise of trade union rights, accompanied by measures for the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination in their employment.

&htab;510.&htab;Since the Government states that this person was dismissed and has appealed against his dismissal to the courts, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this appeal.

&htab;511.&htab;Concerning the strike which took place at the Clinicas Hospital, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the workers in this hospital are only public employees who do not enjoy the right to organise and its explanation that these persons had asked for pay increases in the course of public demonstrations, thus contravening Act No. 200 in respect of the public service instead of availing themselves of the citizens' right of petition.

&htab;512.&htab;The Committee considers that this aspect of the case raises two questions: firstly that of the right to organise of public employees. On this point, the Committee recalls that in accordance with Convention No. 87 ratified by Paraguay, public employees, like any other workers, should have the right to organise for trade union purposes (Article 2 of the Convention). Moreover, according to Convention No. 98, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the right to negotiate conditions of employment collectively (Article 6 of the Convention). The employees of a public hospital, namely the doctors and nurses working there, cannot be considered to be "public servants engaged in the administration of the State".

&htab;513.&htab;Consequently, the Committee - as has the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations - once again requests the Government to ensure the amendment of its legislation, especially Act No. 200 respecting the public service (sections 31 and 36) which allows public employees the right to associate only for cultural and social purposes and forbids them to adopt collective resolutions against measures taken by the competent authorities. The Committee invites the Government to adopt specific provisions granting the right to organise to public employees and to set up machinery for settling collective disputes in the public service in general and in the hospital sector in particular in which the persons concerned will have confidence.

&htab;514.&htab;Secondly, there is the question of the right of the employees of a public hospital to go on strike. In this respect the Committee observes, according to the allegations, that the persons concerned were prosecuted for having resorted to a strike to secure pay increases while they were carrying out their duties in a public hospital. The Committee has already had the occasion to state that the right to strike may indeed be restricted or even prohibited in the public service (public employees being those who act as agents of the public authorities) or in essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). In previous cases the Committee has considered the hospital sector to constitute an essential service. [See 217th Report, Case No. 1091 (India), para. 443, and Case No. 1099 (Norway), para. 467.]

&htab;515.&htab;Nevertheless, the Committee has stated on many occasions that where the right to strike has been restricted or refused in a service considered to be essential, workers in this service should enjoy adequate protection so as to compensate for the restrictions imposed on their freedom of action as regards disputes in the said service. In this particular case, the restriction of the right to strike of doctors and nurses in the Clinicas Hospital should be offset by appropriate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures in which the persons concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards, once made, are fully and promptly implemented, as the Committee had the occasion to state in a previous case. [See 236th Report, Case No. 1263 (Japan), para. 270.]

&htab;516.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee notes with interest that the Government has replied to certain allegations, but regrets that it has as yet supplied no observations on several of the serious allegations made against it by the complainants.

(b) Consequently, on the factual issues, the Committee once again requests the Government to state whether it is correct that members of the pro-Government party assaulted doctors and nurses on hospital premises who were treating persons injured by the forces of order when a trade union demonstration was repressed on 3 May 1986, as affirmed by the ICFTU in a communication of 5 May 1986, and if so to state whether a judicial inquiry has been instituted following this repression to determine who is responsible. (c) The Committee also requests the Government to reply to the ICFTU's allegations dated 3 April 1987 and 30 May 1988 respectively concerning the imprisonment in March 1987 of Raquel Aquino, a leader of secondary-school students, in the Pastor prison and the arrest, on 18 May 1988, of agricultural worker's leaders Marcelino Corazón Medina, Pedro Gamana, Carmelino Torales, Acadio Flores and Teodoro González. In particular, it requests the Government to state precisely on what grounds they were imprisoned, to furnish the text of the court judgements concerning them if they have been tried, and to specify whether these persons have since been released.

(d) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed on the outcome of the appeal against dismissal lodged by the trade union leader Sebastián Rodríguez, former General Secretary of the Bus Drivers' Union (route No. 21) who is said to have been dismissed in 1986 for trade union reasons.

(e) On the legal issues, as regards the denial to public employees of the right to organise in trade unions and the restrictions on their freedom to negotiate their conditions of employment collectively, the Committee requests the Government to ensure the amendment of Act No. 200 in respect of the public service (sections 31 and 36) so as to include specific legislative provisions on the right to organise of public employees and to introduce machinery for the settlement of collective disputes in the public service in which the persons concerned will have confidence.

(f) As regards the ban on strikes by doctors and nurses employed in a public hospital, the Committee requests the Government to ensure the adoption of specific provisions to compensate, by introducing appropriate conciliation and arbitration procedures, for the fact that there is no right to strike in this essential service.

(g) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of this case regarding Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;517.&htab;The New Zealand Employers' Federation (NZEF) presented a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of New Zealand in a communication dated 20 October 1986. It supplied additional information in a letter of 12 January 1987.

&htab;518.&htab;On two occasions, namely in letters dated 27 April and 13 October 1987, the Government announced that new legislation was in the process of being adopted and that a reply was being prepared. The Committee accordingly adjourned the case while awaiting the Government's comments (see 251st Report, paragraph 10, 253rd Report, paragraph 11 and 254th Report, paragraph 6, approved by the Governing Body in May and November 1987, and February 1988, respectively).

&htab;519.&htab;The Government supplied its observations on the case in a communication dated 22 February 1988.

&htab;520.&htab;New Zealand has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;521.&htab;In its communications of 20 October 1986 and 12 January 1987, the NZEF alleges government interference in the right of workers to establish and join organisations of their own choosing through amendments to the trade union registration system embodied in the Labour Relations Act, which had been promulgated on 27 May 1987.

&htab;522.&htab;According to the complainant, the system of union registration in New Zealand, whereby unions which are registered under the Labour Relations Act have exclusive representation and negotiation rights, deprives workers of any effective choice of union and thereby constitutes a denial of freedom of association. It explains that a group of workers wishing to establish a new union must show that the group consists only of workers not covered by an existing agreement or award. Groups of workers seeking registration need not show that their members were engaged in any specified industry or related industries, but union coverage may be changed only through the Registrar of Unions' acceptance (which is appealable) of a definition presented by the groups seeking registration or by an existing union seeking to extend its coverage. The Act states that: (a) a union's coverage may be challenged by an existing union seeking to extend its membership coverage;

(b) challenge by an existing union to a union's coverage shall be determined ultimately by independently conducted ballots of the workers involved;

(c) coverage of unions with "provisional" registration (see below) is protected; and

(d) in the case of a demarcation dispute, the Labour Court will decide which union, if any, has coverage.

The complainant stresses, however, that the Act does not provide for a group of workers seeking registration to challenge the coverage of an existing union.

&htab;523.&htab;According to the NZEF, under this new system, a precondition for registration or continued registration is that a society or union have at least 1,000 members (although "provisional" registration may be sought if the applicant group is likely to increase to 1,000 within two years). Such a requirement, given the preponderance of small and dispersed workplaces in New Zealand, would, in the NZEF's opinion, conflict sharply with the view expressed previously by the Freedom of Association Committee [ Digest of Decisions , para. 256]:

&htab;The establishment of a trade union may be considerably hindered, or even rendered impossible, when legislation fixes the minimum number of members of a trade union at obviously too high a figure, as in this case, for example, where legislation requires that a union must have at least 50 founder members.

&htab;524.&htab;The NZEF states that registration confers on a union the exclusive right to represent the workers it covers not only in award negotiations and other collective bargaining, but also in rights disputes arising during the currency of an award or collective agreement. Moreover, where for any reason, a worker is not a member of the union with coverage in respect of his or her occupation, personal grievance procedures under the Labour Relations Act are not available, these being restricted only to members of registered unions.

&htab;525.&htab;According to the complainant, legislation making membership of registered unions effectively compulsory was reintroduced by an amendment to the Industrial Relations Act in 1985, which is now embodied in the 1987 Labour Relations Act. Registered unions had until the end of 1986 to determine - by means of a ballot of existing members - whether a union membership clause would be contained in each of the awards and collective agreements which the union had negotiated. An affirmative vote resulted in the insertion of a union membership clause for a three-year period and obliged all workers whose occupations were covered by union-negotiated documents to become members of the corresponding union. The effect of registration, reinforced by compulsory unionism, states the NZEF, is to force workers to commit themselves to groups with whose beliefs and ideals their own may well conflict. Effective right to choose a union does not exist, and this has been noted by the Union Membership Exemption Tribunal, a body set up by the 1985 Amendment Act and continued by the 1987 Act, which has stated that New Zealand industrial relations legislation virtually eliminates any right of choice of a union. Registration, involving as it does prior authorisation, makes any right to form an alternative organisation at best theoretical because it denies that organisation the right of representation. In the NZEF's opinion, obliging members of an alternative organisation to join and pay dues to the registered union merely underlines the impotence of the alternative body.

&htab;526.&htab;The NZEF refers to past decisions of the Committee [see Digest of Decisions , para. 229] in support of its complaint:

&htab;The Committee has suggested that the State should amend its legislation so as to make it clear that when a trade union already exists for the same employees as those whom a new union seeking registration is organising or is proposing to organise, or the fact that the existing union holds a bargaining certificate in respect of such class of employees, this cannot give rise to objections of sufficient substance to justify the Registrar in refusing to register the new union.

&htab;527.&htab;In its communication dated 27 April 1987, the Government pointed out that the original Bill to change the industrial relations system had been open to considerable amendment during the various discussions leading to adoption. It stated at that time that it was expected that the legislation would come into force in June or July 1987 and it undertook to supply its comments thereon immediately thereafter.

&htab;528.&htab;In its communication of 13 October 1987, the Government informed the Committee that the legislation which was the subject of this complaint (the Labour Relations Act) had come into force on 1 August 1987.

&htab;529.&htab;In its letter of 22 February 1988, the Government states that the Government's objective in enacting this Act was to provide a means by which the trade union movement might form unions that were larger and more capable of providing the services and protections that workers need. The legislation provides the means for unions to move toward a more unified structure. At the same time, states the Government, the Labour Relations Act does not preclude or discourage the formation and operation of unions of the workers' choice.

&htab;530.&htab;The Government explains that unions which operate through the labour relations system must register under the Labour Relations Act and it is this registration that the New Zealand Employers' Federation complains about. However, according to the Government, the Federation's description of registration is mistaken: registration is presented by the complainant as underpinning union existence or operation (or both), as guaranteeing bargaining rights and as providing special advantages; as well, it is suggested that unregistered unions are denied existence or the freedom to operate (either by law or by being disadvantaged), and that they are denied bargaining rights.

&htab;531.&htab;The Government denies that registration has the legal or practical consequences that are alleged. It explains that registration as a union only denies other registered unions the right to represent the same workers. Registration as a union grants the right to bargain on behalf of the members, but only in the sense of excluding other registered unions from bargaining on behalf of the same workers. Registration as a union does not force recognition of the union by employers. Indeed, both registered and unregistered unions only gain the recognition that they can win from employers - neither is advantaged by the law in this respect. The Government stresses that an unregistered union is free to be formed by and represent whatever workers choose to be represented by it and an unregistered union has no minimum size or restricted membership. It may bargain with any employer of its members who will recognise it. Unregistered unions are lawful and trade union activities are not prescribed by law.

&htab;532.&htab;The Government points out that since the Employers' Federation made its complaint, the Government has liberalised the industrial relations laws. This included the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act, 1973 (and several other Acts that were contrary to the Conventions and principles of the ILO, e.g. the Fishing Industry (UnionCoverage) Act of 1979). The new legislation is the Labour Relations Act 1987 and, according to the Government, significant features of the complaint do not apply to the new legislation. For example, the new legislation does not make membership of registered unions effectively compulsory because it merely provides for workers to vote (including postal votes) to decide on compulsory membership or for the union to negotiate union security clauses into its collective agreements. The new legislation effectively continues the provisions of the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 1985, which the Committee on Freedom of Association approved with two criticisms upheld in Case No. 1334. Moreover, states the Government, the two aspects of the previous Act criticised by the Committee have been corrected by the new Act.

&htab;533.&htab;The Government explains this point further by specifying that unions seeking registration must no longer be in a specified "industry", i.e. unions may now organise to represent workers in any industry or industries, or occupations, or a mixture of both. The test of whether or not the workers might conveniently belong to an already existing registered union has been repealed. Moreover, the Government stresses that the 18-month imposition of compulsory membership which drew criticism in the previous case has ended, and the new Act does not impose compulsory membership by law for any period at all.

&htab;534.&htab;The Government claims that the NZEF's selective citations from the Digest of Decisions are erroneous because the factual and legislative situations currently applying to New Zealand are not the same as those quoted in the Digest . For example, the Government states that a situation allowing only one organisation to exist in the area in which a worker carries out his or her occupation had previously existed under the Fishing Industry (Union Coverage) Act and the Agricultural Workers Act, but these offensive provisions in them have been repealed by the new Act. In addition, the Government repeats that non-registration under the current Act does not make a union unlawful or deny it freedom to organise and bargain.

&htab;535.&htab;In explaining the registration provisions of the new Act in detail, the Government points out that the Incorporated Societies Act and the Trade Union Act exist to enable unregistered unions to gain full legal personality and to enable workers - even if covered by a registered union - to form and join a society. The benefits which registration endows upon a union are: (a) the right to strike when legitimately negotiating an agreement; (b) the right to register collective agreements which may later be enforced with the Labour Court; and (c) the right to ballot members or negotiate with the employer on the question of compulsory membership. (However, the Government adds that it is possible for both registered and unregistered unions to strike provided the act does not constitute an economic tort in common law.) It points out that registration may be denied if some of the members of the applicant body are bound by a registered collective agreement negotiated by a registered union. It adds that workers who are dissatisfied with the registered union of which they are currently members may transfer their membership to another registered union. This transfer is done democratically after a ballot which must be won by a majority, while at the same time the union to which such workers wish to affiliate must ballot its members to verify that a majority will accept the new members.

&htab;536.&htab;As regards the 1,000 members requirement, the Government stresses that this only applies to registered unions and is in line with the objective of the Act, namely to promote effective and efficient registered unions. It claims that for many years the trade union movement has been hampered by organisational fragmentation, a situation which can be significantly addressed by the formation of larger unions which will have the resources, personnel and strength to provide the services, expertise and leadership for effective and efficient unions. Such a development is urgently needed in New Zealand and the minimum membership provision is designed to promote that process. Nonetheless, the Government respects the right of workers to work outside the labour relations system in unregistered unions of their choice, to which no minimum membership requirements are applied. The Government states that it will not impose a trade union monopoly or a unitary structure on the trade union movement. A system is merely provided whereby workers may promote unity in the union movement through registration and working under the system established by the Labour Relations Act. It adds that "provisional" registration for any group of less than 1,000 members is exactly the same as registration, except that the membership of a provisionally registered union is protected from "poaching" for two years. After two years those without a 1,000 members are unable to proceed to full registration, but may continue as an unregistered union.

&htab;537.&htab;The Committee observes that this case involves objections by the NZEF to the 1987 Labour Relations Act on the grounds that the granting of certain exclusive rights to unions by registration eliminates the workers' free choice of a union and that the continuance of what amounts to compulsory union membership provisions likewise undermines the workers' freedom to choose an organisation to represent them. The complainant also alleges that the excessively high minimum membership requirement (1,000 members) hinders the creation of trade unions.

&htab;538.&htab;As regards the minimum membership requirement, the Committee notes the Government's reasons for adopting such a provision and the fact that the 1,000-member requirement only applies to groups of workers seeking registration. The Committee observes that section 6 of the Act reads as follows:

&htab;6. (1)  Subject to the provisions of this Act, any group (whether a society or not) of workers may be registered under this Act as a union.

&htab;(2)&htab;Subject to the provisions of this Act, no group shall be registered as a union under this Act unless it will at the time of registration consist of at least 1,000 members (being workers) or such other number of members as is from time to time specified by the Governor-General by Order in Council for the purposes of this subsection.

It also observes that where the Registrar refuses an application for the registration of any group as a union, that group may appeal to the Labour Court against the decision (section 16 of the Act).

&htab;539.&htab;In examining what would appear to be at first sight a very high minimum membership number requirement, the Committee has kept in mind the underlying principle of the New Zealand industrial relations system, namely that registration of workers' organisations under the new Act is optional. Moreover, it notes, as the Government points out in its reply, that groups of workers which are not able, or do not want, to comply with the Act's 1,000-member requirement can still be formed. However, the Committee must also give due consideration to the situation of a workers' organisation which wants to be registered under the new Act (and benefit from the advantages which flow therefrom) and yet, because it cannot muster 1,000 members, is thus restricted in its objectives and activities. In such circumstances it could not carry out all the activities which it wished. For example, if their main objective was the negotiation of binding agreements, such unregistered unions would not enjoy one of the principal advantages of registration, namely the right to have their collective agreements registered for enforcement through the Labour Court.

&htab;540.&htab;In the Committee's opinion, the difficulty in gathering together 1,000 members could be considerable in bargaining units covering a small number of workers. Such workers might therefore be liable to be deprived of the right to form organisations capable of fully exercising their activities, contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the Governor-General has made use of the power afforded to him under section 6(2) of the Act to specify another number of minimum members for the registration of a union.

&htab;541.&htab;As regards the alleged denial of a worker's free choice of unions, the Committee notes that certain important advantages are granted to unions which choose to register under the Labour Relations Act. In such situations, the position of the ILO supervisory bodies has been not to criticise systems under which the most representative union enjoys preferential or exclusive bargaining rights, on condition that decisions concerning representativity are based on precise, objective and pre-established criteria [See 202nd Report, Case No. 949 (Malta), para. 278]. More specifically, the Committee has indicated inthe past that it is not necessarily incompatible with Convention No. 87 to accord negotiating privileges to the most representative unions if a number of safeguards are provided including: (a) certification is to be made by an independent body; (b) the representative organisations are to be chosen by a majority vote of the employees in the units concerned; (c) the right exists for an organisation which fails to secure a sufficiently large number of votes to ask for a new election after a stipulated period; (d) the right exists for an organisation other than the certificated organisations to demand a new election after a fixed period, often 12 months, has elapsed since the previous election [222nd Report, Case No. 1163 (Cyprus), para. 313 and 251st Report, Case No. 1250 (Belgium), para. 71].

&htab;542.&htab;In the present case, the Committee considers that the purpose of registration is clearly set out in section 7 of the Labour Relations Act, which reads as follows:

&htab;7. (1)  Registration as a union gives that union -

&htab;(a) exclusive coverage of the workers covered by the union's membership rule;

&htab;(b) exclusive rights to negotiate on behalf of those workers; &htab;(c) access to compulsory conciliation procedures for the negotiation of awards;

&htab;(d) ability to negotiate awards that have effect beyond the original parties to them;

&htab;(e) ability to negotiate awards and agreements that are enforceable;

&htab;(f) access to procedures for resolving disputes of interest and disputes of rights and personal grievances;

&htab;(g) access to the Labour Court and the Arbitration Commission in accordance with the procedures provided under this Act.

&htab;543.&htab;In addition, a registered union's exclusive status can be challenged by existing unions which claim to have parallel coverage of the workers involved before the Labour Court; in a challenge by an existing union to a registered union's coverage an independent ballot of involved workers is required; and the Labour Court is to decide demarcation disputes (sections 16 and 98 of the Act). The objectivity of the authority assisting in such questions of challenges to a registered union's coverage is ensured by section 104 of the Act, which states that "Every union coverage ballot shall be conducted by the Registrar of Unions, or by some person being an employee of the Department of Labour designated by the Registrar of Unions ...". Extensive provisions are also made to settle disputed ballots (sections 111 to 120).

&htab;544.&htab;The Committee therefore considers that the registration system set up by the 1987 Labour Relations Act which accords exclusive negotiation rights to registered unions would not be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association provided that the registrationis based on objective and predetermined criteria.

&htab;545.&htab;The supervisory bodies have also considered that the grantingof exclusive rights to the most representative organisation should not mean that the existence of other unions to which certain involved workers might wish to belong is prohibited. Minority organisations should be permitted to carry out their activities and at least to have the right to speak on behalf of their members and to represent them. [See: Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining , General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, 1983, para. 141.]

&htab;546.&htab;An examination should therefore be made in the present case of the rights and activities which unregistered unions have and may exercise. In this respect, the Committee notes that an unregistered union is free to be formed and cover all the workers who wish to be represented by it. It can also negotiate on behalf of its members with any employer who recognises it, it being understood, however, that its collective agreements could not be registered. Moreover, an unregistered union, like registered ones, can, subject to certain reservations, call strikes. It consequently appears that there is no legislative provision prohibiting unregistered unions from functioning,albeit to a limited extent. The Committee, however, notes with concern the complainant's opinion that the right to form an alternative unregistered union is "at best theoretical".

&htab;547.&htab;The Committee is aware that the formation of other unions could be seriously hindered in so far as the workers' choice would be limited and they would be inclined to join organisations enjoying broader rights. Since it has no information before it on the practicalapplication of the legislation, the Committee is unable to reach a decision as to the real posibilities available in practice to workers to form unregistered organisations or on their possibility to exercise activities to promote and defend their members' interests. The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply information on developments in the number of unregistered unions and the type of activities they carry out (in particular, conclusion of collective agreements).

&htab;548.&htab;As regards the allegation that the provisions of the Act covering personal grievances are dependent on membership of a registered union the Committee notes that, indeed in some cases, access to such procedures is linked to membership of a registered union (sections 209(d) and 216(1)). On the other hand, it notes from a reading of the Act that direct access to the Labour Court is provided by section 218 when a worker considers that he has grounds for a personal grievance. This direct access is possible in four specified cases: when a worker is not a member of a registered union because he has been exempted from union membership under the exemption provisions of the Act; or when a worker, not being a member of a union has been subjected to duress by the employer in relation to union membership or non-membership; or when a worker, not being a member of a union has suffered discrimination because he was a member of a group which previously had requested registration; or when a worker belongs to a union but is not satisfied with the treatment of his case. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether section 218 allows a non-exempted worker belonging to a non-registered union to have access to the Labour Court - for example, in a case of unjustified dismissal - and, if not, to specify the alternative remedies available to such a worker.

&htab;549.&htab;As regards the allegation that compulsory union membership denies the free choice by workers of an organisation, the Committee observes that the pertinent section of the Labour Relations Act reads as follows:

&htab;58.&htab;The object of this Part of this Act, in relation to union membership provisions, is to establish that -

(a) while unions may provide for a wider membership, all persons working who fall within the coverage of a union membership rule have a right to join that union;

(b) where an award or agreement contains a union membership clause any adult worker covered by that award or agreement must become a member within 14 days of being requested to do so by the union;

(c) the insertion of a union membership clause can be negotiated by the parties to an award or agreement, but, if not settled by negotiation, the matter can be determined by a ballot of all workers bound by the award or agreement; (d) union membership ballots must be supervised by the Registrar of Unions; (e) exemption from union membership may be sought only on the grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction. [Emphasis added.]

&htab;550.&htab;The Committee notes that this provision basically continues the system which previously existed in New Zealand under other legislation and about which the NZEF has complained in the past [See 244th Report, Case No. 1334, paras. 78-123 approved by the Governing Body in May-June 1986]. As pointed out by the Government in the present case, the main provisions criticised by the Committee on Freedom of Association in that previous complaint have been removed from the Labour Relations Act of 1987. For example, the imposition of compulsory union membership clauses for an 18-month period and the "conveniently belong" criterion do not appear in the new Act. The Committee accordingly bases its consideration of the current legislation on the reasoning applied to the earlier complaint, in particular on the decision of the ILO's supervisory bodies to leave it to "the practice and regulations of each State to decide whether it is appropriate to guarantee the right of workers not to join an occupational organisation or ... to authorise and, where necessary, regulate the use of union security clauses in practice" [See General Survey , 1983, p. 47, para. 142].

&htab;551.&htab;The Committee also recalls the distinction made between union security clauses allowed by law and those imposed by law, only the latter of which appear to result in a trade union monopoly system contrary to the principles of freedom of association. Given the freedom for balloting and negotiating union membership clauses in the terms of section 58, the Committee considers that it has not been presented with information as would require it to change its earlier decision concerning the union security arrangements existing in New Zealand. It thus considers that there has been no violation of the principles of freedom of association in respect of this aspect of the current legislation.

&htab;552.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee considers that the registration system set up by the 1987 Labour Relations Act which accords exclusive negotiation rights to registered unions would not be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association provided that the registration is based on objective and predetermined criteria.

(b) The Committee nevertheless considers that the Act's 1,000 members minimum membership requirement might be liable to deprive workers in bargaining units covering a limited number of workers of the right to form organisations capable of fully exercising their activities, contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate whether the Governor-General has made use of the power afforded to him under section 6(2) of the Act to specify another number of minimum members for the registration of a union.

(c) The Committee notes that the legislation in force under which registered unions are granted certain exclusive rights respects the criteria set by the ILO's supervisory bodies as regards determination of organisations to have exclusive status, but is nevertheless aware that the formation of other unions could be seriously hindered in so far as the workers' choice would be limited and they would be inclined to join organisations benefiting from broader rights. It therefore requests the Government to supply information on developments in the number of unregistered unions and the type of activities they carry out.

(d) The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether section 218 of the Act allows a non-exempted worker belonging to an unregistered union to have access to the Labour Court - for example, in a case of unjustified dismissal - and, if not, to specify the alternative remedies available to such a worker.

&htab;553.&htab;The Committee examined this case at its meeting in February 1988 and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 254th Report, paragraphs 474-492, approved by the Governing Body at its 239th Session (February-March 1988)].

&htab;554.&htab;The Government subsequently sent certain information and observations in a communication dated 14 June 1988.

&htab;555.&htab;Bahrain has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

&htab;556.&htab;The allegation which remained pending after the last examination of this matter by the Committee concerned the arrest and detention without trial of a trade union leader, namely Mr. Ibrahim Al Kassab, President of the General Committee of Bahrain Workers, attached, according to the complainant, to the ALBA Aluminium Company.

&htab;557.&htab;At its meeting in February 1988, the Committee recalled the importance of prompt and fair trial by the judiciary in all cases of the arrest and detention of trade unionists and requested the Government to supply information on the situation of the trade union leader, Mr. Ibrahim Al Kassab.

&htab;558.&htab;In a letter of 14 June 1988, the Government admits that the Bahrain public security forces arrested Mr. Ibrahim Al Kassab, but states that he stood trial in Case No. 1987/State Security 1/36. According to the Government, the court rendered a verdict of guilty on 29 October 1987 and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, to count from the date of his arrest.

&htab;559.&htab;The Government maintains that this matter does not concern the right to organise and the right to work, as alleged by the complainant. It adds that Mr. Al Kassab was not detained or arrested through the enforcement of any exceptional measures, but was prosecuted for a criminal offence, brought to trial under the Penal Code of the State of Bahrain and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, as previously indicated.

&htab;560.&htab;In the present matter, the Committee observes that the versions of the complainant and the Government are contradictory. According to the complainant, the President of the General Committee of Bahrain Workers, Mr. Ibrahim Al Kassab, was arrested and detained without trial for trade union activities. According to the Government,the person involved was tried and sentenced to five years' imprisonmentfor a criminal offence.

&htab;561.&htab;In accordance with its usual practice when, in reply to complainants' allegations that trade union officials or workers have been arrested for trade union activity, governments maintain that the persons in question were arrested and sentenced for criminal offences without specifying the nature of the offences, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the precise charges brought against Mr. Al Kassab and to supply a copy of the judgement sentencing him to five years' imprisonment, with the reasons adduced.

&htab;562.&htab;The Committee also requests the complainant to provide all complementary information at its disposal in this case.

&htab;563.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:

&htab;Taking into account the contradiction existing between the versions of the complainant and the Government concerning the arrest and detention on 13 July 1986 of the President of the General Committee of Bahrain Workers in the ALBA Aluminium Company, Mr. Al Kassab, the Committee, in order to be able to reach conclusions on this matter in full knowledge of the facts, requests the Government to specify the facts which gave rise to the arrest of this person, to communicate the charges brought against him, to indicate the section of the Penal Code under which he was sentenced and to supply a copy of the judgement concerning this person (Case No. 1987/State Security 1/36), with the reasons adduced therefor. It also requests the complainant to provide all complementary information at its disposal in this case.

&htab;564.&htab;The International Union of Food and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) presented allegations of violations of trade union rights against the Government of the Philippines in a communication dated 12 October 1987. It presented further information in letters of 5 April and 20 September 1988. The Government supplied its observationson the allegations in communications of 14 April and 13 May 1988.

&htab;565. The Philippines have ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) and the Rural Workers' Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141).

&htab;566.&htab;In its communication of 12 October 1987, the IUF alleges that, on 4 July 1987, Mr. Amado Cayao, chapter president of the IUF's local affiliate, the National Federation of Sugar Workers - Food and General Trades (NFSW-FGT), was murdered near his home. It claims that this assassination is a part of the continuing violence, intimidation and harassment exercised against members and officials of the NFSW-FGT, apparently by units of the Philippine armed forces and various para-military organisations.

&htab;567.&htab;The IUF supplies a report prepared by its affiliate describing repression of rural workers on Negros Island. According to this document, three workers, active NFSW-FGT organisers in Northern Negros were ruthlessly killed by armed groups believed to be supported by some miller-planters and the military. Those murdered were: Uldarico Antojado, Anecito Emalay and Moreto Pastidio. Messrs. Antojado and Emalay were leaders of the 17-day strike in April 1986 andthe former was allegedly picked up by several armed men; his mutilatedcorpse was later found in a sugarcane field. Mr. Emalay was allegedly attacked and shot dead in front of several passengers when riding a bus to San Carlos City. Mr. Pastidio was allegedly killed by members of an armed band for no reason other than belonging to the NFSW-FGT.

&htab;568.&htab;According to the document, despite eye-witness accounts, the armed groups responsible for these 1986 killings remain free and terrorise organised sugar workers with impunity. It claims that the current Government's enunciation of human rights as a cornerstone of social policy has not affected the Philippine countryside. In Negros, organised workers who criticise the unjust social structures and political repression are branded as communists and suffer other adversepropaganda, notably from the landlords. The document lists brutalitiessuffered in 1987 by other NFSW-FGT members: Rodrigo Villacuatro was killed by members of the armed independent groups operating in the Toboso region; in February three further members in the towns of Sitio, Hilumunan and Kabankalan were detained without charges by the 7th Infantry Battalion; in April 12 members were arbitraily arrested by the 11th Infantry Battalion in connection with a guerilla ambush of government troops and were released the next day after interrogation; on 17 May two organisers, Francisco and Joseph Guillermo, suffered serious gunshot wounds when walking home in a sugar field in Magalona town; on 28 May nine members (Jesus Quanteros, Narciso Malalay, Marly Malalay, Wilfredo Baruca, Nerissa Bautista, Carmen Malalay all from the Longga plantation, and Leopoldo Oliveras, Mondejar Dominado and Mr. Antonio from the Mandaya plantation) were arrested and detained by the 11th Infantry Battalion in Canlaon City on suspicion of being members of the New Peoples Army (NPA) and all except Nerissa Bautista (12 years old, detained at La Castellana to do household chores for the soldiers) were subsequently released; on 3 June four members (Persie Moyong, Emmanuel Genoves, Edgar Ostan and Eduardo Ostan Snr.) were arrested by the 11th Battalion in Camansi and all except Mr. Genoves were released after an intervention by the NFSW lawyer with the battalion commander; on 22 June Mrs. Prima Balaud, widow of union organiser Tito Balaud, and four other NFSW members (Belinda Balaud, Mariano Yunson, Arguiles Yunson and Rebecca Yunson) were arrested by the 7th Infantry Battalion and later released after interrogation on condition that they report weekly to the detachment at Kabankalan; on 25 June the union Vice-President Romeo Bulina and four other union officers (Romeo Tenessa, Rod Tenessa, Clarita Salde and Joel Estrella) were roused from their sleep by soldiers accusing them of being rebel supporters and are still in military detention; on 28 June three members (Arturo Mandiruya, Ruby Sanse and Virgilio Sardon) were held briefly by the 6th Infantry Battalion in Isabela town. It gives details of the slaying on 4 July of chapter president Amado Cayao whose body was found riddled with bullets beside a canefield near his house. Eye witnesses allegedly saw eight armed men in camouflaged uniforms strafing nearby workers' houses.

&htab;569.&htab;The document also describes harassment of rural workers over the same period in an effort to coerce them not to join the NFSW. It claims that in negotiations with government and military representatives over violence on Negros Island, the issue of human rights violations was diverted by the military who referred to anti-communist and anti-insurgency measures.

&htab;570.&htab;The complainant also attaches a list entitled "Victims of military operations" detailing physical damage to residents and their property (particularly burning and strafing of their houses and theft of water buffalos and livestock) in the following townships: Binalbagan, Himamaylan, La Castellana, La Carlota City and Pontevedra.

&htab;571.&htab;In its communication of 5 April 1988, the IUF alleges further repression in January and February 1988 of members of its affiliated union, the NFSW-FGT: Carmelina Cornelio of New Escalante was harassed and strafed by police on 6 January. In addition it states that 32 named persons were arbitrarily arrested and/or detained by police detachments (see Annex).

&htab;572.&htab;In its letter of 20 September 1988, the IUF alleges that on 3 July 1988 José "Joe" Tampinco, member of the executive board and head of the education committee of the NFSW, was murdered while participating at a gathering in Bacolod. It expresses its serious concern at the deterioration of the situation in the Philippines and states that the Government is unable to comply with Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 which it has ratified. Newspaper clippings attached to the letter report that Mr. Tampinco was gunned down by suspected New People's Army "Sparrow" gunmen.

&htab;573.&htab;In its letter of 14 April 1988, the Government states that the Department of Labor and Employment has inquired into the specific cases of human rights violations presented by the IUF, but had some difficulties in securing information from the various agencies involved because of ongoing reorganisation within the military and the Government itself.

&htab;574.&htab;It states that the Philippines Commission on Human Rights had received complaints from only two of the alleged victims mentioned in the NFSW-FGT document, namely Aldarico Antojado and Mrs. Balaud. The former's case has been evaluated by the Commission and a formal complaint is now pending before the regional trial court of San Carlos City. The military personnel allegedly involved in the case of Mrs. Balaud have already been identified and placed under restrictions at the Philippine constabulary headquarters in Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for investigation and appropriate legal action that may result therefrom. The cases of the other victims, in particular the alleged murder of Amado Cayao, whose lawyers or family did not file any formal complaints are none the less being investigated by the Commission's regional office. There are about 30 cases from Negros Occidental docketed in the Philippines Commission on Human Rights concerning alleged human rights violations of farm workers in the areas of Kabankalan, Himamaylan, La Castellana, La Carlota City, Pontevedra and Binalbagan; but the names of the complainants are not those listed in the present case, or similar to them. These cases are being investigated by the Commission.

&htab;575.&htab;The Government states that it has instructed the Labor Department's regional office (which has jurisdiction over the area where the alleged killings and harassment took place) to conduct its own investigation into the NFSW-FGT report. It is now in the process of gathering documentary evidence that would clarify the matter. Initial reactions received from the Philippine Constabulary provincial command indicate that some of the NFSW officers and members are involved in insurgency activities. It has been alleged that some are not only sympathisers but are party members of the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Government also undertakes to raise the specific complaints during the dialogue with the military provincial commanders in the affected areas. These complaints will also be placed on the agenda of the Regional Labor-Management Council meeting in the affected areas.

&htab;576.&htab;The alleged involvement of armed groups or the so-called "vigilantes" is likewise being investigated. According to the Government, there has been an alarming increase in the number of insurgent, terrorist-instigated violent incidents which have caused the spontaneous proliferation of civilian volunteer organisations for community self-defence against criminals and other lawless elements. In order that respect for the law and human rights is observed by these volunteer organisations, guide-lines on their formation and functions were issued on 30 October 1987. The guide-lines provide, inter alia that: (1) that volunteer organisations shall exclusively be for self-defence and protection; (2) membership shall be purely on a voluntary basis and thoroughly screened to eliminate criminal elements; (3) such organisations shall not engage in any activity contrary to the law and any member who commits any offence punishable by law shall be prosecuted accordingly. They are also not allowed to operate against any threatening group except in the exercise of the right of self-defence. A monitoring mechanism has likewise been set up so that the guide-lines and safeguards can be carried out. According to the Government, the guide-lines seek to ensure that civilian volunteer self-defence organisations do not commit any abuses and that victims or complainants will receive justice and the abusers be investigated and charged in court when warranted. The Government supplies a copy of the guide-lines.

&htab;577.&htab;The Department of Labor and Employment is now co-ordinating with the Department of National Defence, the Department of Local Governments and Community Development, and the relevant units in the military regarding the alleged detention, harassment and disappearance of the other persons named in the complaint. It will inform the Committee of developments in this matter.

&htab;578.&htab;The Government stresses that it is committed to improve the lot of workers and to protect and uphold their rights to self-organisation and collective bargaining. It explains that the Philippines Constitution of 1986, which was ratified by 70 per cent of the Filipino people, expressly afforded full protection to labour, local and overseas, organised and unorganised. It points out that even before the promulgation of the said Constitution, President Aquino issued Executive Order No. 111 which amended or repealed provisions of the Labour Code that tended to repress the rights of workers and their trade unions. A review of the labour laws is currently being conducted so as to align them with the mandate of the new Constitution and the aims of government programmes to promote the economic and social well-being of the people.

&htab;579.&htab;In conclusion, the Government states that it is likewise committed to upholding and respecting civil liberties and human rights. For example, barely a month after the installation of the new Government in 1986, the Presidential Committee on Human Rights was created. The Committee was mandated to investigate cases of unexplained or forced disappearances, extra-judicial killings, massacres, torture, food blockades and other violations of human rights, as well as to propose procedures and safeguards to ensure that human rights are not violated by officers or agents of the Government or by persons acting on their behalf or under their orders. The 1986 Constitution created an independent constitutional office called the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to investigate, on its own initiative or on complaint by any party, all aspects of human rights. The Government supplies a copy of sections 17 to 19 of the Constitution describing the CHR. The Government reiterates its adherence to the principle of free trade unionism and its commitment to protect and uphold workers' rights. It observes that it has taken the country two years to establish the institutions of democracy: a President, a Supreme Court and Congress and states that it will take several more years to restore democracy in every Filipino's way of life.

&htab;580.&htab;The Government's communication of 13 May 1988 advises that according to the records of the CHR neither the NFSW nor the relatives of Amado Cayao has filed any complaint against the alleged perpetratorsof his murder from the military ranks. Notwithstanding this, the Commission has on its own accord conducted an investigation into this case. The Department of Labor is co-ordinating closely with this body and has also requested the military commander of Bacolod Province to inquire into the same case. It undertakes to inform the Committee of the outcome of these investigations as soon as these are available.

&htab;581.&htab;The Committee notes that this case involves serious allegations of military or para-military repression of members of the complainant's local affiliate in their efforts to function in Negros province. These allegations include: (1) violent murders of union leaders and unionists (in 1986 Uldarico Antojado, Anecito Emalay, Moreto Pastidio; in 1987 Rodrigo Villacuatro and Amado Cayao; in 1988 José "Joe" Tampinco); (2) woundings (on 17 May 1987 Francisco and Joseph Guillermo); (3) arbitrary arrests and detentions (Jesus Quanteros, Narciso Malalay, Marly Malalay, Wilfredo Baruca, Nerissa Bautista, Carmen Malalay, Leopoldo Oliveras, Mondejar Dominado, Mr. Antonio, Perse Moyang, Emmanuel Genoves, Edgar Ostan, Eduardo Ostan Sr., Prima Balaud, Belinda Balaud, Mariano Yunson, Arguiles Yunson, Rebecca Yunson, Romeo Bulina, Romeo Tenessa, Rod Tenessa, Clarita Salde, Joel Estrella, Arturo Mandiruya, Ruby Sanse, Virgilio Sardon), seven of whom remain in detention (12-year-old Nerissa Bautista, Emmanuel Genoves, Romeo Bulina, Romeo and Rod Teressa, Clarita Salde, Joel Estrella).

&htab;582.&htab;There are also allegations concerning destruction of or damage to rural workers' houses and household property and arbitrary arrests and detentions of 32 persons connected to the NFSW-FGT without specifying if these acts were related to trade union activities.

&htab;583.&htab;The Committee's first observation is that the Government's reply itself indicates that, in some cases, the arrests of NFSW officers and members had nothing to do with their trade union functions, but were linked to alleged insurgency activities and membership of banned rebel or political organisations. Allegations of such a nature do not fall within the competence of the Committee [Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1985, para. 201.] On the other hand, the Committee has always been careful in such situations to note that measures which although of a political nature and not intended to restrict trade unionrights as such may, nevertheless, be applied in such a manner as to affect the exercise of such rights [ Digest , para. 197]. The Committee would therefore request more details from the Government as to the reasons for the arrests of the persons listed by the complainant and the specific charges laid against the seven who remain in detention.

&htab;584.&htab;The Committee welcomes the fact that an independent, high-level body - the Philippines Commission on Human Rights (CHR) - is investigating the cases of human rights violations alleged in the complaint, in particular the murder of Amado Cayao. The Committee notes in this connection that two of the events listed by the complainant had already been the subject of inquiry by the CHR, leading in the case of Mr. Antojado's death, to a trial before the San Carlos City court and, in the case of Ms. Balaud's arrest, to charges against certain military personnel. The Committee looks forward to receiving from the Government the final court decisions in the Antojado and Balaud cases, as well as information on developments in the CHR's own inquiries into the NFSW-FGT's allegations of deaths, woundings and arbitrary arrests and detentions of union officials and members in Negros Province.

&htab;585.&htab;At the same time, the Committee would appreciate receiving clarification from the Government as to the CHR's proceedings and effectiveness. For example, it is clear from the Constitution that the CHR can request assistance from any department or agency in the performance of its functions, but there is no explanation of its relationship to the National Bureau of Investigation and the ordinary criminal or military courts, or whether police investigations are suspended during the CHR's inquiries. The Committee would recall in this connection that detained trade unionists, like anyone else, should benefit from normal judicial proceedings and have the right to due process, in particular, the right to be informed of the charges brought against them, the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate freely with counsel of their own choosing and the right to a prompt trial by an impartial and independent judicial authority [ Digest , para. 110], the Committee has in fact emphasised the importance of prompt and fair trial by an independent and impartial judiciary in all cases, including cases where trade unionists are charged with political or criminal offences which the Government might consider as having no relation to their trade union functions. [ Digest , para. 113.]

&htab;586.&htab;As regards the alleged role of vigilante groups in the harassment and repression of trade unionists in rural areas of Negros Province, the Committee takes note of the Government's detailed guide-lines issued in October 1987 in an effort to limit their activities to non-aggressive self-defence and to avoid lawlessness. From the copy of the guide-lines supplied, it appears that, in addition to a regular monthly report to the Armed Forces Chief of Staff listing the leaders, locations and firearms-carrying members of such groups, there is an Inter-Agency Subcommittee having regional monitoring subcommittees which can investigate complaints against abuses by such groups. The Government's reply is silent as to whether any of the incidents detailed by the complainant have been reported to this supervisory body, but refers to co-ordinated inquiries by the Departments of Labor and Employment, National Defence, Local Governments and Community Development and the relevant units of the military. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of these inquiries, including details as to whether members of civilian volunteer self-defence groups are in fact identified as perpetrators of the violence to persons and to property in Negros Province as listed by the complainant, as well as details on any charges brought and trials completed.

&htab;587.&htab;The Committee takes due note of the Government's commitment to the protection of workers' rights and trusts that it is this spirit which will ensure timely and fair investigations by all parties concerned into the complainant's allegations so that the Committee will have full particulars before it to allow a thorough examination of the case.

&htab;588.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) As regards the murders, woundings and arbitrary arrests and detentions allegedly perpetrated by the military against trade union leaders and members in rural areas of Negros Province, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the trials in the Antojado and Balaud cases, as well as of the results of the Philippines Commission on Human Rights' investigations into the other incidents listed by the complainant; moreover, the Committee requests the Government to provide more details on the reasons for the arrests of the persons listed by the complainant and the specific charges laid against the seven who remain in detention. (b) It requests the Government to supply its observations on the complainant's most recent allegation of the murder of a trade union leader on 3 July 1988 in Bacolod, during a union gathering. (c) As regards the violent harassment allegedly perpetrated by para-military groups in these rural areas, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the co-ordinated inquiries by various government departments and the military into this allegation, including any use made of the monitoring provisions of the guide-lines on civilian volunteer self-defence groups in this connection.

(d) More generally, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the proceedings of the recently established Philippines Commission on Human Rights and on the follow-up procedures.

&htab;599.&htab;In its communication of 20 October 1987, the National Workers' Union of Olivetti Colombiana S.A. alleged that Olivetti Colombiana S.A., an office machine enterprise, had been engaging in anti-union harassment with a view to breaking the trade union - an objective which had been publicly stated by the enterprise's legal representative. Between January 1982 and August 1987, the enterprise had managed to reduce its workforce from 252 to 85 workers by dismissing some, by paying others to resign, etc.; in the past 60 days, the number of trade union members had fallen from 62 to 35, while Colombian legislation requires a minimum of 25 members for a trade union's continued existence.

&htab;600.&htab;In particular the complainant organisation alleges the following:

- in the past 24 months, Olivetti Colombiana S.A. has been fined or warned on six occasions, for violating the collective agreement and for ignoring Colombia's labour legislation; moreover, Olivetti Colombiana S.A. is now facing three administrative investigations concerning its labour practices: two for violations of the collective agreement with its workers, and one for anti-trade union harassment;

- Olivetti's legal representative and its labour relations officer induced all workers in the sales department (all of whom were union members) to resign in exchange for large sums of money, in order to hire temporary staff on the condition that they would not join the union; the above-mentioned Olivetti managers pay each worker US$1,200 for withdrawing from the trade union, and they have already managed to induce six trade union members to do so, by threatening workers who do not accept their offer with dismissal;

- Olivetti Colombiana S.A. subjected three unionised workers with more than 25 years of uninterrupted service to psychological torture, by successively assigning them to less important posts, and ultimately by preventing them from working, although requiring them to be present at the plant; these tactics led one of these workers to seek psychiatric help, and eventually to retire under disadvantageous conditions;

- Olivetti Colombiana S.A. constantly endeavours to bribe trade union officials through financial rewards and job promotions, in an effort to demoralise the other workers.

&htab;601.&htab;In its communication of 11 November 1987, the Government states that the dismissal of workers falls under the jurisdiction of ordinary labour courts, regardless of the motives for dismissal, and whether or not it concerns unionised workers. Dismissed unionised workers have the right to initiate proceedings for their reinstatement in the above-mentioned courts, which will order their reinstatement if they find that the dismissal took place without the labour judge's prior authorisation. Non-unionised workers who have been unjustly dismissed have the right to claim damages. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security, in accordance with the powers granted by law, has punished the enterprise by means of fines and warnings for failure to comply with legal provisions and the collective agreements. It should be noted, however, that as an administrative authority, the Ministry ofLabour and Social Security is not authorised to take other measures in the face of the enterprise's failure to comply with these provisions. The fact that certain labour proceedings have been brought against Olivetti Colombiana S.A. is not, in any way, the basis for the administrative authority's sanctions, but clearly reflects the right of workers to present their case in court when they consider that their rights have been violated. The Government likewise states that the investigations and efforts at conciliation which are currently in progress represent machinery for the resolution of disputes between employers and workers, under the auspices of the labour authorities, in an effort to settle disputes and reach binding agreements between the parties, without the need to go to court.

&htab;602.&htab;The Government adds that it is unlawful and punishable by law to compel an employee to resign, to offer bribes to induce him to withdraw from a trade union, and to cause a deterioration in the conditions of work as a means of compelling workers to retire. Section 290 of the Criminal Code provides for six months' to three years' imprisonment, and fines ranging from 2,000 pesos to 20,000 pesos, for persons who use violence or deceipt to cause workers to resign from enterprises where they work, or for those who, through the same means, disrupt or prevent the free exercise of any person's gainful activity. Section 292 of the same Code provides for one to five years' imprisonment, and fines ranging from 1,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos, for persons convicted of preventing or disrupting a lawful meeting or the exercise of rights granted by trade union legislation, or for those who engage in reprisals for legitimate strikes, meetings or associations. The actions alleged by the complainants typify clear infractions of the right to work and freedom of association, as definedby the Criminal Code; it is the duty of the persons and organisations concerned to bring these matters to the attention of the competent courts. The workers cannot expect an agency of the executive branch, such as the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, to render an opinion concerning criminal actions, and much less to sentence the parties responsible to terms of imprisonment, as this lies exclusively within the competence of the criminal courts.

&htab;603.&htab;Lastly, the Government considers that the ILO should obtain from the complainant organisation the names, positions, dates and reasons for dismissal of the 167 workers who left the enterprise between 1982 and 1987, reducing its staff from 252 to 85 employees. The complainant organisation should also identify and state the position of all workers in the sales department who were forced to resign, and provide the same information concerning the six workers who were allegedly paid to give up their membership in the trade union, of the three workers who were subjected to "psychological torture", and of the 26 trade union members whose retirement has reduced the trade union's membership from 62 to 35 members. [The ILO requested this information from the complainant organisation, but did not receive any reply.]

&htab;604.&htab;In a subsequent communication of 8 February 1988, the Government states that an investigation into the allegations of anti-union harassment by Olivetti Colombiana S.A. against its workers' trade union was undertaken by the Labour Inspecorate, in accordance with a written request dated 16 September 1987 and signed by the General Secretary of the trade union. The chairman of the trade union was summoned on 25 September 1987 to confirm the allegations, but failed to appear. Subsequently, by means of a decision dated 2 October, an inspector was appointed to continue the investigation; although he again summoned the trade union's legal representative on 28 October, that person also failed to appear. In application of the provisions contained in the Administrative Disputes Code concerning the prompt review of administrative actions, the labour inspector again summoned the chairman of the trade union on 23 November 1987; again, he failed to appear. The Government emphasises that the trade union leaders repeated failure to answer the summons issued by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, and therefore to assist with the investigation, is clear evidence of the trade union's lack of interest in helping the administrative authority fulfil its function of protecting the workers. It also reflects the rash and incorrect way in which trade union organisations frequently avail themselves of the right to present complaints to the ILO.

&htab;605.&htab;Lastly, the Government states that it considers it necessary for the Workers' Union of Olivetti Colombiana S.A. to explain why it has failed to co-operate with the authorities in clarifying the facts concerning the allegations of anti-union harassment, and to substantiate its accusations, so that offences, if any, may be punished. [See also the mission report.]

&htab;606.&htab;The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) alleges in its communication of 29 February 1988 that it has noted withalarm an incredible increase of violence in Colombia, which over the past two years has led to the death of a great number of trade union leaders and peasant leaders, simply because they have sought to defend the legitimate trade union rights and interests of workers. Almost every day, several assaults and murders are reported leaving thousands of persons dead and clearly showing that Colombia is experiencing a period of acute violence. The impunity with which human and trade union rights are violated in Colombia is evidence not only of a demonstrable inefficiency in law enforcement and judicial machinery, but also of a long history of economic and social inequality, of unequal access to physical resources, and of obstacles to the self-realisation of Colombians, not only as citizens, but even as members of a society. Colombia's recent governments have focused their attention on political violence and the drug traffic, while somewhat neglecting the alarming growth of other forms of violence which, as a whole, victimise a much greater number of persons and deeply affect the day-to-day life of Colombians. Moreover, highly organised criminalrings exist side by side, and frequently intermix, with these other forms of violence. This is true of organisations engaged in activitieswhich mobilise substantial volumes of capital (emerald mines, drug trafficking) and organisations which clearly seek to secure social and political control, and thus pose an even greater threat to democracy. From the bowels of this underworld has emerged a sinister figure: the hired assassin, trained, paid and protected by forces sometimes too powerful to be named. In general, the acts of violence in Colombia areattributed to several paramilitary groups and hired assassins linked to drug traffickers, leftist guerrilla forces and common criminals. All of these groups seem to operate with impunity. In October last, the Department of the Interior published a list of 138 active paramilitary groups in the country; however, the Government seems incapable of identifying and dismantling them.

&htab;607.&htab;The pervasiveness of violence in Colombia is highly alarming:over 90 per cent of its victims are extraneous to the political struggle between the State and the various groups and individuals whichwould overthrow it. Essentially, they are the victims of violence rooted in social inequalities, in the conditions of an absolute povertywhich knows only extreme ways for resolving conflicts, which in other circumstances would be handled very differently. However, it should remain clear that another disquieting phenomenon accompanies the low intensity confrontations between citizens and the State: the unbridledviolence against persons who have been granted amnesty, against those who have espoused democratic principles and, in the past year especially, against political and trade union activists who seek, within an institutional framework, to come to power or work to promote mass organisations; they are the target of a systematic and selective campaign of extermination. The opposition places the blame for political violence in Colombia squarely on the military forces, and accuses them of supporting paramilitary groups which have murdered most of its militants and leaders in recent years. For its part, the Government denies the existence of a systematic policy of repression against the political opposition, although certain officials have publicly declared that military elements are linked to these paramilitary groups, albeit in a private capacity. There has been no serious investigations into these possible ties. However, human rightsgroups both within and outside Colombia, as well as trade union, socialand political organisations refer to various circumstances which appear to implicate government officials in the wave of violence that is sweeping over the country. Among others, these include the use of military weapons and unregistered vehicles which have been seen in the vicinity of military or law enforcement precincts. This dirty war in Colombia has cost the lives of thousands of persons, and fostered a climate of insecurity, fear and confusion among the general population.

&htab;608.&htab;Moreover, the ICFTU alleges that the Colombian judicial system is inoperative. Owing in large measure to the actions of gunmenin the service of drug traffickers who, in the past three years, have murdered one minister of justice, approximately 50 judges and over a dozen journalists who dared to challenge the ringleaders of the so-called Medellín Cartel, the judicial system has been effectively destroyed, and it now seems incapable of confronting organised paramilitary and criminal groups. Countless denunciations attest to the permanent state of insecurity in which the general population, and trade union leaders in particular, live. This climate of constant danger has been further aggravated in the past year by the appearance of several "blacklists". The most recent contains the names of 370 persons, including several trade union leaders. At least two of the persons whose names appeared on these lists, Jaime Pardo Leal and Héctor Abad, of the Human Rights Committee, have already been murdered.

&htab;609.&htab;The ICFTU emphasises the intimate relationship which exists between the effective realisation of human and trade union rights, on the one hand, and the fight against violence in its various manifestations, on the other. The violence in Colombia today stands in the way of the realisation of human and trade union rights, starting with the most fundamental right: the right to life.

&htab;610.&htab;The ICFTU states that the Colombian trade union movement has been directly affected. In 1987, 74 trade union leaders and trade unionists have been murdered. This, however, is only the number of cases which the ICFTU has been able to verify.

&htab;611.&htab;The ICFTU adds that there are alarming signs in Colombia of the complicity of certain sectors of the State with the violation of human and trade union rights. Certain more or less organised sectors within the State's institutions use their authority to engage in torture, to participate in forced disappearances and to commit murder, to name only the most serious crimes. This conduct is inadmissible, since the State cannot fight crime with crime, and cannot advocate the respect for the right to life when some of its officials, enjoying the immunity of their position, fail to respect this right. The ICFTU considers that it is the Colombian Government which must wholeheartedlyinvestigate the forced disappearances with a view to identifying and trying those guilty of murder; it must guarantee the life of its citizens, and revise its legislation to provide a real and genuine protection of all human and trade union rights. It is the Government which must bring to justice the privileged groups which promote violence under the pretext of protecting their most niggardly interests. In general, the Colombian Government's attitude towards human and trade union rights is a determining factor in the construction of a more democratic and less violent nation. The current situation in Colombia seriously undermines the freedom of the trade union movement as a whole.

&htab;612.&htab;The WCOTP emphasises that several paramilitary groups are active in Colombia, and pose a threat to the lives of teachers and trade unionists. The Colombian armed forces are apparently implicated in murders and death threats. Section 184 of an "anti-guerrilla combat regulation" of 9 April 1969, proposes the creation of "self-defence committees". Section 185 defines such a committee as "a military organisation made up of selected civilian persons in combat areas. These persons are trained and equipped to take action against guerrilla groups threatening the area, or to act in co-ordination with military units engaged in combat". Some of the murders have been committed by persons in uniform. Since the Colombian authorities do not seem to be capable of guaranteeing protection, a number of teachers have found it necessary to leave their homes and seek refuge in the capital city.

&htab;613.&htab;The CUT, the ICFTU, the WCOTP and the WFTU have reported the following murders:

1986

- JOSE ELI PAEZ, employed on the Villanueva farm, member of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union of Antioquia (SINTAGRO); murdered in 1986.

- FRANCISCO ANTONIO JIMENEZ, worked on the Villanueva farm, member of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union of Antioquia (SINTAGRO); murdered on 27 February 1986. - MARIO TABORDA, worked on the Villanueva farm, member of SINTAGRO; murdered on 27 February 1986.

- VICTOR HERNANDEZ, watchman in the service of the Workers' Federation of Quindio (FETRAQUIN); murdered on 26 March 1986 in Armenia (Quindio). - WALTER ROLDAN, member of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union of Antioquia (SINTAGRO); murdered on 27 March 1986 in the municipality of Turbo, after having been led away from his home by a paramilitary group.

- JULIO CESAR SANTACRUZ, teacher, member of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia (ADIDA), and SIMEON RAMIREZ, who worked at the La Suerte farm and belonged to SINTAGRO.

- AURELIO DE JESUS ORTIZ, member of the National Banana Industry Trade Union (SINTRABANANO); murdered on 13 April 1986 in Apartadó (Antioquia).

- RUBEN PINEDA, President of SINTRAAGRARIOS; murdered on 20 April 1986 by paramilitary forces in Apartadó (Antioquia).

- PEDRO LEON PINEDA, official of the National Fruit Industry Trade Union (SINALTRAFRUIT) who worked for the PROBAN Banana Exporting Company; murdered on 23 April 1986 in Zungo, municipality of Apartadó (Antioquia) eight days after he had been arrested by the national police in the same place and threatened with death.

- CARLOS JULIO ORTIZ, teacher, member of the Teachers' Association of Huila (ADIH); murdered in Palermo (Huila) on 16 April 1986.

- GABRIEL HOLGUIN OLAVE, leader of SINTRABANANO; disappeared on 7 May 1986 in Mutata (Antioquia). - SAUL VILLADA, member of the Works Council of SINTAGRO; murdered on 28 June 1986 in Currulao (Antioquia).

- BALDOMERO MOSQUERA, member of SINTAGRO; murdered by a paramilitary group on 2 July 1986.

- LUIS ENRIQUE ESPAÑA, LUIS FELIPE MURILLO, LUIS CARLOS TORRES, members of SINTAGRO; murdered by a paramilitary group on 14 July 1986 on the Malí farm in the municipality of Apartadó.

- JOSUE EDUARDO FUEMAYOR, teacher, member of the Teachers' Trade Union of Nariño (SIMANA); murdered on 7 September 1986 in Mocoa (Putumayo).

- JOSE LELEALDO HERRERA CANO, President of the Argos Cement Workers' Trade Union; murdered in Itagüí (Antioquia) on 20 September 1986. - GUSTAVO MAYA CARVAJAL, President of the Executive Committee of the National Telecommunications Trade Union (SITTELECOM); murdered in Valledupar (Cesar) on 20 September 1986.

- OSCAR DARIO TORRES, employed by SINTAGRO; murdered on 7 November 1986 in Apartadó (Antioquia). - JOSE MARIA IMBET ARRIETA, Treasurer of the Journalists' Trade Union of Antioquia; murdered in Apartadó on 11 November 1986.

- MARIO CORREZ, banana worker affiliated with SINTAGRO; murdered in Apartadó (Antioquia) on 11 November 1986.

- INES ARRIETA, Treasurer of the Day Labourers' Trade Union of Antioquia (SINDEJORNALEROS); murdered on 2 December 1986 in Apartadó (Antioquia).

- JULIO CESAR URIBE, President of the Nare Cement Workers' Trade Union, executive of the National Federation of Cement Workers (FENALTRACONCEM), member of the CUT and leader of the Patriotic League; murdered by hired assassins in Puerto Boyacá (Cundinamarca) on 8 December 1986.

- TOBIAS TORRES, banana worker affiliated with SINTAGRO; murdered on 10 December 1986.

1987

- JAIRO ANTONIO CHAMORRO ROMERO, peasant leader of the National Association of Peasant Farmers (ANUC); murdered by two hired assassins in the municipality of Corozal Sucre on 13 January 1987.

- RICARDO EMILIO CORREA, banana worker, member of SINTAGRO; murdered by hired assassins in Apartadó on 28 January 1987.

- PEDRO HERNANDEZ, Treasurer of the Indigenous Reservation of San Andrés de Sotavento (Córdoba); arrested by police agents and the landowner JULIAN CUMPLIDO, tortured and murdered in January 1987.

- FREDI TAPIAS, worked for "Inversiones del Darien", and member of SINTAGRO; tortured and murdered in Apartadó (Antioquia) on 16 February 1987.

- RANULFO SERRANO and ADALBERTO GONZALEZ, banana workers, members of SINTAGRO; murdered by a paramilitary group in the presence of their spouses and children on 16 February 1987.

- OSCAR EXTREMOR, peasant leader; murdered on the Catía footpath in the municipality of Turbo (Antioquia) on 16 February 1987.

- OVIDIO CANO PEÑATE, leader of SINTRABANANO-CUT; murdered on the Praga farm in the municipality of Apartadó (Antioquia) on 26 February 1987.

- OBDULIO PALACIOS, President of SINDEJORNALERO; riddled with bullets in Chigorodó (Antioquia) on 28 February 1987.

- JOSE HERNAN USUGA, President of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union (SINTRAGRICOLA) and national leader of the Confederation of Colombian Workers (CTC); murdered in Turbo (Antioquia) on 7 March 1987 after having filed complaints against the Voltígeros Battalion. - JESUS ANTONIO MOLINA, official of the Trade Union of Workers in the Construction and Cement Industry (SUTIMAC); murdered on 9 March 1987 in Puerto Nare (Antioquia) by hired killers. - NEMESIO CORDOBA SALAS, PASCUAL ACOSTA PEREZ and GERARDO DIAZ, banana workers, members of SINTAGRO; murdered in Turbo (Antioquia) on 11 March 1987.

- FIDEL ANTONIO PICO, banana worker, member of SINTAGRO; murdered on 14 March 1987.

- ESTEBAN AGUASLIMPIAS PEREA and FABIO DE JESUS LONDOÑO GARCIA, members of SINTAGROCUT; murdered on 14 March 1987.

- SAMUEL VALDEZ RIOS, President of the Trade Union of Small and Medium-sized Farmers of Plato (Magdalena); tortured and murdered in Plato on 1 April 1987.

- MARIO ACORO CUERO, official of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union (SINTAGRO); hacked to death with machetes on 22 May 1987 by several unidentified persons on the farm where he was working.

- ELADIO RENTERIA and GILDARDO MENA; mudered in Apartadó on 3 June 1987 by a paramilitary group.

- ANTONIO FERNANDEX, PEDRO EZEQUIEL GIL and JUAN ANTONIO LOPEZ, agriculural workers; murdered in Turbo (Antioquia) on 13 June 1987.

- DARIO GARRIDO RUIZ, teacher, member of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia; murdered in Urrá (Antioquia) on 3 July 1987.

- NARCISO MOSQUERA SANCHEZ, leader of SINTAGRO; murdered by hired assassins in Medellín (Antioquia) on 4 July 1987, while a member of the SINTAGRO negotiating committee.

- ESTEBAN FERNANDEZ, banana worker, member of SINTRABANANO; murdered on 6 June 1987 in Apartadó (Antioquia).

- FRANCISCO ANTONIO PALACIO, member of SINTAGRO; murdered on 16 July 1987 in Apartadó (Antioquia).

- EUCLIDES GARZON, former trade union leader of the Workers' Trade Union (USO); murdered in Barrancabermeja by hired assassins on 16 July 1987.

- BERNARDO GARCIA, JAIME BLANDON and LUIS GUZMAN, leaders of the National Gas Industry Trade Union (SINDEGAS); murdered by a paramilitary group while working at a gas distribution centre near Barrancabermeja (Santander). - ADAN GONZALEZ, leader of SINTRABANANO; murdered in Apartadó (Antioquia) on 18 July 1987.

- ALBERTO COGUELLO, former President of SINTAGRO; murdered on the "La Negra" farm in Apartadó on 19 July 1987.

- HAROLD JIMENEZ, leader of SINTRABANANO; murdered by a paramilitary group on 19 July 1987 in Turbo (Antioquia).

- HERNANDO DE JESUS SANGUINO YACOME, teacher, member of the Teachers' Association of North Santander (ASINORT); murdered on 23 July 1987 while leaving the school where he was working, by hired assassins belonging to the paramilitary group known as "Sociedad de Amigos de Ocaña".

- IGNACIO BEDOYA, murdered on 8 August 1987 while at work, at the Caracolí quarry, by paramilitary elements.

- CARLOS LOPEZ BEDOYA, teacher; murdered on 3 August 1987 in Medellín.

- JESUS HERNANDO RESTREPO, teacher; murdered on 4 August 1987 in Medellín.

- PEDRO LUIS VALENCIA G., teacher; murdered on 14 August 1987 in Medellín.

- REYNALDO ALZATE, teacher; murdered on 18 August 1987 in Acevedo (Huila).

- LEONARDO BETANCUR, teacher; murdered on 25 August 1987 in Medellín.

- ALEJANDRO JOSE GOMEZ, banana worker, member of SINTAGRO; murdered on 25 August 1987 in Urabá.

- LUIS FELIPE VELEZ HERRERA, attorney, teacher, President of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia (ADIDA), regional director of the Workers' Central Organisation (CUT), member of the Popular Front; murdered by hired assassins at 7 a.m. on 25 August 1987, while entering the trade union headquarters. He had been detained by the 4th Brigade and received several death threats.

- HECTOR ABAD GOMEZ, a well-known Colombian physician, professor at the University of Antioquia, President of the Human Rights Committee of Antioquia, well known to international human rights organisations for his courageous denunciations of violations of human rights in Colombia, a man deeply committed to liberal democratic ideals, member of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia (ADIDA); vilely murdered by hired assassins at the trade union headquarters while he was attending the wake for LUIS FELIPE VELEZ, on the evening of 25 August 1987. - LUIS OVIDIO ESTRADA BETANCOURT, leader of the Educational Workers' Trade Union of del Valle (SUTEV); murdered in the presence of his family on the evening of 30 August 1987, in Toro (Valle). - MARCIANO BERRIO, employee of SINTAGRO; murdered on 3 September 1987 in Apartadó.

- FULTON GARCES, trade union leader of SINTRABANANO; murdered on 6 September 1987 in Urabá (Antioquia).

- JOSE FIDEL MANJARRES, teacher, member of the Education Workers' Trade Union of Guaviare (SUTEG); murdered in San José del Guaviare on 8 September 1987.

- WILLIAN ALFONSO CADENA, general secretary of the Association of Colombian Chauffeurs (ASOCHOCOL); murdered in Bogotá on 9 September 1987.

- MARCO TULIO VILLA, trade union leader of the Association of Employees of the National University of Medellín; tortured in the presence of his family, and subsequently murdered by a paramilitary group of 18 men on the evening of 9 September 1987.

- APOLINO HERNANDEZ DE LA ROSA, 26 years old. Trade union leader for the banana farms in Urabá. Murdered by unidentified persons who shot at him on 13 September. He was attacked near his home in a rural sector of the municipality of Apartadó, and died while he was being transported to receive medical care.

- DORA TORRES, teacher, member of the Teachers' Trade Union of Santander (SES); murdered in Rionegro Santander on 18 September 1987.

- GILBERTO CHAVERRA ROBLEDO, leader of the Banana Workers' Trade Union. Murdered on 20 September 1987 by unidentified persons on a farm in the region of Apartadó (Antioquia). Two other workers accompanying him were wounded.

- EUCLIDES MONTES NEGRETE, teacher, member of the Executive Committee of the Teachers' Association of Córdoba (ADEMACOR), in the municipality of Tierra Alta (Córdoba); murdered on 24 September 1987 by a group of hired assassins.

- JOSE URIEL RAMIREZ MILLAN, member of the Workers' Trade Union of del Valle (SUTEV); murdered in Victoria (Valle) by hired assassins on 25 September 1987.

- DOMITILA SIGUA GUANAY, teacher; murdered on 27 September 1987 in Támara (Casanare).

- JUAN PAULINO LOPEZ MENA, general secretary of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union of Antioquia (SINTAGRO), a well-known trade union leader and official of the Popular Front; murdered by hired assassins on the evening of 30 September 1987 in Apartadó.

- ALBERTO ANGULO, President of SINTRABANANO and city councillor of Apartadó, where he was a leading citizen; murdered on the evening of 29 September 1987.

- JOSE ALDEMAR GONZALEZ, member of SINTRABANANO's negotiating committee; murdered in Apartadó on the evening of 29 September 1987.

- PABLO EMILIO MADRIGAL CORDOBA, trade union leader of the National Federation of Construction and Cement Workers (FENALTRACONCEM); murdered in Puerto Nare (Antioquia) on 30 September 1987 by a paramilitary group.

- ALFONSO MIGUEL LOZANO, trade union leader of SINTRACOLCARBUROS; murdered in Sierra (Antioquia) in October 1987.

- JOSE ARISTIDES GIRON, member of SINTRABANANO; murdered in Urabá in October 1987.

- JESUS CORDOBA QUINTERO, 37 years old, trade union leader of the Banana Workers' Trade Union; shot to death on 25 October 1987 by unidentified persons, in Urabá.

- MIGUEL DURAN SARMIENTO, trade union leader of the Teachers' Association of Córdoba; shot dead by four individuals on 7 December 1987 while at his home in the municipality of Puerto Escondido.

- RODRIGO GUZMAN MARTINZEZ, Vice-President of the National Association of Resident Physicians and Interns (ANIR, Antioquia section), member of the Popular Front; murdered by hired assassins in his office in Medellín in October 1987.

- CARLOS ALFREDO VANEGAS OSSA, teacher in the municipality of Girardota (Antioquia), member of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia (ADIDA); murdered by two hired assassins while travelling to work in a Medellín city bus in October 1987.

- ALFONSO LOAIZA and GUSTAVO CALLEJAS, members of the Construction Materials Industry Workers' Trade Union (SUTIMAC, Caracolí section), and employees of the Cementos del Nare enterprise; murdered on 16 November 1987 at 10 a.m., a few feet away from the La Sierra police station.

- JOSE GABRIEL CUADROS, general secretary of SINTRAIME; murdered on 3 December 1987 at 12 a.m., while entering the premises of the FURESA enterprise in Medellín. - ARGEMIRO COLORADO, general secretary of the Woodworkers' Trade Union of Ceja (Antioquia); murdered on 4 December 1987 at 8 p.m., at the trade union office.

- ANGEL MANUEL GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ, President of the Automotive Industry Trade Union in Duitama, employed by Sofasa-Renault (ASINTRAUTO); died on 26 December 1987 after having been arrested and beaten by police on 16 December 1987.

1988

- GILDARDO GONZALEZ, employee of the Colombian Carbide Company (COLCARBURO), trade unionist; suffered gunshot wounds inflicted by paramilitary elements on 3 January 1988.

- OVIDIO ASSIA, former leader of the Teachers' Association of Sucre (ADES); murdered on 8 January 1988 in the municipality of Corozal, Department of Sucre.

- MANUEL GUSTAVO CHACON SARMIENTO, trade union leader of the USO; murdered on 15 January 1988 in Barrancabermeja.

- ARGEMIRO CORREA, Vice-President of SINTAGRO, Vice-President of FENSUAGRO; murdered on Friday, 15 January 1988, at 7 p.m., while in the restaurant of the Buena Vista Hotel in Apartadó (Antioquia).

- AUGUSTO GUERRERO MARQUEZ, artist, President of the Musicians' Association of Santander; kidnapped on Monday, 8 January, and found dead in Bucaramanga on 19 January 1988, showing signs of having been tortured brutally.

- ARTURO SALAZAR, trade union leader in the Cementos del Nare enterprise; kidnapped by paramilitary elements in Puerto Nare (Antioquia), and found dead on 19 January 1988.

- HECTOR JULIO MEJIA, Treasurer of the SUTIMAC, Puerto Nare section; is in critical condition following a cruel attempt on his life.

- DARIO GOMEZ, employee of the Cementos del Nare enterprise, member of the SUTIMAC; disappeared on the morning of 19 January 1988 while travelling by boat on the Nare River. His body was found several days later in the Magdalena River.

- JESUS EMILIO MONSALVE, employee of the Cementos del Nare enterprise, member of SUTIMAC; disappeared on 24 January 1988, and his body, which showed signs of torture, was found several days later in the Nare River.

- ANIBAL DIAZ, member of the Teachers' Trade Union of Guaviare; murdered on 25 January 1988. - HUBER ANIBAL CABEZAS, member of the Teachers' Trade Union of Guaviare; murdered by hired assassins as he was entering the rural school where he taught, on 1 February 1988.

- BERNARDO ARBELAEZ, Director of the Rural Development Office of San José de Guaviare; shot to death on his way home from the funeral of his murdered friend, on 2 February 1988.

- JULIO ALBERTO MARTINEZ FAURO, teacher in the municipality of Arauca, department of Arauca, member of ASEDAR; murdered on 2 February 1988. - JUAN de JESUS GRISALES, employee, member of SUTIMAC; murdered on 3 February 1988, while in the staff recreation room of the Cementos del Nare enterprise.

- HECTOR JULIO MEJIA, leader of the Construction Materials Industry Workers' Trade Union of SUTIMAC, (Nare section), employed in the SUTIMAC enterprise; murdered when struck by four bullets in the body and three in the head on 8 February 1988, while on his way to work. According to available information, the crime was perpetrated by four paramilitary elements riding two high-powered motor cycles.

- OMAR OCHOA, IVAN DARIO MOLINA, GUILLERMO LEON VALENCIA, JOSE BLANCO, JULIAN CARRILLO, MANUEL COGOLLO ESPITIA, GUIDO GONZALES MARTINEZ, BIENVENIDO GONZALEZ MARTINEZ, PEDRO CONGALEZ MARTINEZ, ENRIQUE GUISADO MIRANDA, RITO MARTINEZ REYES, GILBERTO MENESES PINEDA, JOAQUIN MENDOZA, JOSE MENA SANCHEZ, SANTIAGO ORTIZ, RODRIGO GUZMAN, MANUEL DURANGO, ALIRIO ROJAS, JOSE PINEDA, NATANAEL ROJAS, NESTOR MARINO GALVIS and ABEL MENESES, murdered on the Turbo-Medellín highway (near the "Honduras" and "La Negra" farms), after they were forced to get off the bus. They were active members of the Agricultural Workers' Trade Union (SINTAGRO); brutally and violently murdered in the middle of the night of 4 March 1988, after they were awakened and dragged from their homes in the presence of their families.

- ROGELIO RIOS, member of SINTAGRO; murdered on 9 March 1988 in Apartadó.

- VALENTIN VASCO CAMARGO, President of the ANUC; murdered in Serrito, Santander.

- JOSE ANTONIO BOHORQUEZ, leader of the Employees' Association of the Industrial University of Santander; murdered on 16 March 1988.

- On 3 April 1988 a paramilitary group murdered 28 peasants and wounded 20 others. The events took place in the vicinity of "La Mejor Esquina" in the municipality of Buena Vista, department of Córdoba. This is a highly militarised zone in which heavily armed paramilitary groups move about freely and indiscriminately murder unarmed civilians. The competent authorities have thus far taken no measures against these criminals. The murdered peasants are: JUAN SAEZ MARTINEZ, TOMAS BERRIO WILCHES, DONALDO BENITEZ BENITEZ, DIONISIO BENITEZ BENITEZ, LUIS SIERRA, FREDY MARTINEZ, TOMAS RIVERO AGUIRRE, JOSE GUEVARA, PEDRO PABLO MARQUEZ BENITEZ, CARLOS MARQUEZ BENITEZ, OSCAR SIERRA MERCADO, DOMINGO SALAS, CARMEN BARRAGAN, JAIME PATERNINA, IVAN ACEVEDO, RAMON NISPERUZA, ROGELIO MEJIA MEDRANO, MATENCIO SAENZ, SILVERIO SAENZ, SILVIO PEREZ PEREZ, SILVIO MELENDEZ, JUAN RUIZ, CLETO MARTINEZ, MARCOS MARTINEZ; a peasant named BERTEL, and another named ENZU. The names of the other murdered peasants are not known. - ROBINSON GIRALDO, member of SINTAGRO; murdered on 4 April 1988. - On 9 April 1988 a group of hired assassins launched grenades and fired on persons participating in a celebration organised by the INDUPALMA trade union, a CUT affiliate. This attack left two trade unionists dead - JOSE FRANCISCO POLO VILLALOBOS and HUMBERTO MARTINEZ GUALDERON; the following persons were seriously injured: ARCESIO PINZON JIMENEZ, ISABEL VARGAS de CORUELA, MARIA ESTHER PONZON LIBARDO, VARGAS LOPEZ, FELIX MARIA PEREZ, LARROTA HECTOR PINZON, JAIRO PEREZ PIRACON, DAVID DARIO GOMEZ, JOSE ARLEY BEDOYA and ANTONIO HOYOS HERNANDEZ. - On 11 April a paramilitary group destroyed the homes of several peasants and kidnapped 23 workers who belonged to the Aruba Coouhisa Agricultural Co-operative. Later, the bodies of JOSE DRANGO ZAPATA, MANUEL GONZALEZ, TUTIZO LEONARDO PALACIO, ROMAN PABLO, EMILIO MAZO MURILLO, ORLANDO BALLESTEROS, MARTINEZ, CALIXTO ANTONIO GONZALES, TURIZO LUDAS, HERNANDEZ MADARIAGA and MANUAL MARTINEZ, were found at the Vereda Coquitos. On 13 April the bodies of HERMINIO BALLESTEROS, NEVER LOPEZ, EDILBERTO AVILA, CALIXTO HERRERA, HERNANDO SEGURA, GILBERTO QUINTERO TIRSO, NOE GARAVITO, MARIO ANAYA, DOMINGO DELGADO FRANCISCO, HEISEN TORRES, MILDIADES HURTADO, as well as those of two children, were found. - OSWALDO TEHERAN, national trade union leader of the indigenous organisation ONIC; murdered on 16 April 1988 in the municipality of Tuchín (Córdoba). - AUGUSTO MUÑOZ CASTRILLON, President of the Executive Committee of SINTRACANAZULOL, Virginia section; murdered on 21 April 1988, in the municipality of Cartago, Department of El Valle. - MATIAS BARRANZA, Treasurer of the Small Farmers' Trade Union; murdered on 24 April 1988 at Tamarindo Atlántico.

- HERNANDO COLON HERNANDEZ and RAFAEL DUQUE PEREZ, both teachers and trade unionists; murdered on 27 April 1988 in the city of Montería, Department of Córdoba.

- OVIDIO BERMUDEZ, leader of the Social Security Workers' Trade Union; murdered on 2 May 1988 by hired assassins in Santander, Quilichao, Department of Cauca.

- JUAN DIEGO ARANGO MORALES, trade union leader of the SINTRAFOFASA RENAULT, Envigado (Antioquia) section; murdered on 5 May 1988 by paramilitary groups.

- CAMILO RENTERIA, member of the Works Council of the San Antonio farm (Envigado, Antioquia); murdered on 12 May 1988.

- RAMON RESTREPO, OSCAR RESTREPO and GUILLERMO OSORIO, members of the Public Enterprise Workers' Trade Union of Medellín; murdered on 26 June 1988.

- FRANCISCO TRIVINO, leader of the National Federation of Colombian Coffee Workers' Trade Union; murdered by paramilitary groups. Disappeared on 28 May 1988 and was found dead on 8 June near the Santander de Quilichao-Canca cemetery.

- CESAR GENARO SERPA, EDISON GARCIA and FELIX BOHORQUEZ, members of SINTAGRO (SACASARA section); kidnapped and murdered on 14 July 1988 by a paramilitary group, which also sacked the trade union's headquarters.

- GERARDO JEREZ QUIROGA, Treasurer of SINTRAEMPOSAN (Barrancanermeja); disappeared on 12 July and was found dead on 15 July 1988. His body showed signs of torture (his face had acid burns, his finger nails had been pulled off, and he was tied up with barbed wire).

- LUIS ANTONIO MARTINEZ DUARTE, 37 years old, a witness to the murder of HAMET CONSUEGRA and JUAN HOSE HERNANDEZ DUEÑAS, all employed by Ecopetrol and activists in the USO trade union; murdered by hired assassins on 28 July 1988.

- HAMET CONSUEGRA LLORENTE, former Vice-President of the USO; murdered by agents of the F-2 in Barrancabermeja (Santander) on 26 May 1988.

- ALIRIO ZARAZA MARTINEZ, attorney and labour adviser; murdered by hired assassins in Bucaramango (Santander) on 29 July 1988.

- MELBA AMARILES HERNANDEZ, leader of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia (ADIDA); shot dead in front of the León de Greiff School in Medellín, on 29 July 1988.

- RICARDO RIOS SERRANO, member of SINTRAELECOL, Bucaramanga section; murdered by hired assassins in front of the premises of the Electrificadora de Santander enterprise in Bucaramanga (Santander), on the evening of 26 August 1988.

- LEON CARDON ISAZA, President of the Trade Union of Workers in the Construction Materials Industry Workers' Trade Union, member of the Executive Committee of the National Federation of Workers in the Construction, Cement, Wood and Building Materials Industry; and SERGIO OSPINA, member of the Appeals Committee of the Construction Materials Industry Workers' Trade Union, Nare section (Antioquia), who is in critical condition; and WILLIAM ARBOLEDA, taxi driver who was taking the two above-mentioned persons from the Olaya Herrera Airport into Medellín (Antioquia) on 30 August 1988.

&htab;614.&htab;In a communication of 24 August 1988, the WCOTP reports the murders of the following trade unionists and trade union leaders in the teaching profession, which took place in 1988.

- CARLOS TELLEZ, teacher at the Camilo Torres school in Bucaramanga, Department of Santander, member of the Teachers' Association of Santander (SES); murdered on 22 February 1988 in the city of Cúcuta. - JAIRO SAJONERO GOMEZ, teacher at the Camilo Torres School in Barrancabermeja, Department of Santander, member of the Teachers' Association of Santander (SES); murdered on 26 February 1988 in the same city.

- BLANCA ISMELIA MORENO, teacher at the India Media school in the municipality of Puerto Parra, Department of Santander, member of the Teachers' Association of Santander (SES); murdered on 4 March 1988.

- ALFONSO KUJAVANTE, professor at the University of Córdoba, Department of Córdoba, member of the University Professors' Trade Union (ASPU); murdered on 15 March 1988.

- BENIGNO AGUALIMPIA IBARGUEN, Director of the Agustín Nieto Caballero school in Betoyes, jurisdiction of Tame, Arauca, member of the Teachers' Association of Arauca (ASEDAR); murdered on 22 March 1988.

- TOMAS BERRIO WILCHES, Director of the La Mejor Esquina vicinity school, municipality of Buenavista, Department of Córdoba, member of the Teachers' Association of Córdoba (ADEMACOR); murdered on 3 April 1988.

- GUILLERMO OCHOA, former Treasurer of the Association of Secondary School Teachers of Colombia (ACPES), teacher at the Secondary Institute of Medellín; disappeared on 21 April and was found dead on 25 April 1988 in the municipality of Caldas, Department of Antioquia.

- JOSE OCTAVIO BUITRAGO IBAÑEZ, teacher at the León de Greiff school in Bogotá, D.E., member of the District Teachers' Association (ADE); died after having been shot in the back on 25 April 1988 while in a cafeteria. - JULIO C. GUTIERREZ, teacher in the municipality of Bolívar, Department of Valle, member of the Education Workers' Trade Union of Valle (SUTEV).

- MANUEL SALVADOR RAMIREZ, teacher in the municipality of Doradal, member of the Teachers' Association of Antioquia (ADIDA); murdered on 20 May 1988, after having been forced to get off a bus. - LUIS GREGORIO TORRES MORA, teacher at the Co-operative School of El Retén, Aracataca, Department of Magdalena, member of the Magdalena Teachers' Trade Union (EDUMAG); kidnapped on 29 May 1988 by five heavily armed men, and found dead on 30 May 1988 near the municipality of Fundación.

- HECTOR JULIO ORTIZ, Vice-President of the Caldas Teachers' Trade Union (EDUCAL); murdered on 8 June 1988.

- EFRAIN PEÑA REYES, teacher at the Camilo Torres national school, member of the District Teachers' Association (ADE); fell into the hands of his murderers on 13 December 1987 at Río Dulce, 3 kilometres from Sasaima, Department of Cundinamarca.

&htab;615.&htab;The complainant organisations also refer to the murders of many other workers, without indicating their trade union affiliation or participation in trade union activities.

&htab;616.&htab;The Government states that, like the complainant organisations, it is dismayed by the increase in violence in Colombia in recent years; it is doing everything possible to counter this violence and ensure that all citizens may live in peace. Unfortunately, Colombia is going through a very difficult period in its social development and historical process, in which subversive leftist groups have voluntarily withdrawn from the political process and espoused ideological movements such as the Patriotic Union. In response, several extremist reactionary groups have taken justice into their own hands, sowing panic throughout the population. These groups function in anonymity and secrecy, hiring common criminals for their criminal purposes. Although the Government has stepped up law enforcement and provided offers of complete protection and immunity to individuals who come forward to identify the responsible parties, it has been impossible to eliminate the extremists on either side. The violence attributable to drug traffickers is intimately related to that of right-wing groups: both offer financial inducements to common criminals, for whom their association with these groups represents an easy means of making money, even at the cost of the lives and security of innocent persons. It is clear that the State must counter all sources of violence, and that it is morally, constitutionally and legally obliged to fight against all sources of violence, because all are working to the detriment of the country, and none may be consideredless dangerous than another. The Government is very concerned over social inequalities, and for this reason its development plan is based on the eradication of abject poverty; not only the Presidential Commission set up for this purpose, but all government agencies are working towards that goal. Naturally, this objective cannot be achieved overnight, but it is hoped that these efforts will bear fruit in the medium term. It is essential to emphasise that the Republic's armed forces are in no way responsible for the violence which besets the country. The Colombian army and police exemplify respect for civility and democracy; many of their members have also been victims of these violent actions throughout the country's history. Indeed, many soldiers, agents, government officials and public servants have given their lives in the defence of the institutions. It is therefore inadmissible that they be accused of promoting or causing the violent climate in which the nation lives. The Government states that it will not relent in its fight against violence, and in its efforts to guarantee peace and safety for all the country's inhabitants.

&htab;617.&htab;As regards the region of Urabá, the Government states that it is deeply concerned with the reign of terror in that region, especially because it has not been possible to identify its source (drug traffickers, guerilla groups, extremists on the right or left, landowners, etc.). The Government has recently adopted a series of drastic measures with a view to solving this delicate problem. In an address of 14 April 1988 (the relevant portion of which is attached to its reply), televised throughout the country, the President of the Republic announced that the Council of Ministers had decided to set up a special system in the region of Urabá, in accordance with its powers under the current state of siege, and article 121 of the National Constitution. Essentially, this decision declares the region a military operations area, and calls for the creation of a military command which will work hand in hand with the Governor of Antioquia andthe mayors of municipalities in the region. The military commander will have such powers as are necessary for the difficult task of bringing about peace in Urabá. In his speech, the President of the Republic also emphasised that the problems in this area do not only require a military solution, but that "... they also have deep social and economic roots. We have therefore created a Junta composed by the Ministers of the Interior, Justice, Defence, Agriculture and Labour andthe Governor of Antioquia, for the purpose of drafting an economic and social rehabilitation plan for the area." Decree No. 678 creates the Military Command of Urabá, with jurisdiction over the municipalities of Arboletes, Turbo, Necoclí, Apartadó, Chigorogó, Mutatá, Murindó, Vigía del Fuerte, San Juan de Urabá, Carepa, San Pedro de Urabá and Dabeiba. As stated in the Decree, the Government's decision is based on the deep concern throughout the country over the recent acts of genocide perpetrated by anti-social groups in the municipalities of Turbo and Apartadó, and on the Government's duty to intervene in this critical situation through the adoption of measures aimed at restoring peace and public order in this deeply troubled region. This Decree was immediately followed by Decree No. 680 of 15 April 1988, by which the Government appointed General Fernando Gómez Barros, an officer known for his success in restoring peace in El Valle and Magdalena Medio, as Military Commander. As he himself stated, General Gómez was perfectly aware that, although a greater military presence in the area might help to halt the slaughter of workers, there were many causes for the problems facing this region requiring a variety of solutions including the establishment of more courts in the area, since their number was insufficient and their investigations were often fruitless, through no fault of the judges, but simply because there were not enough of them to hear all the cases brought to court. It should also be noted that another major short-term objective of the Government's struggle against violence in Urabá is the implementation of agrarian reform, which is of great interest to the militants of the leftist Popular Front, whose members have been victimised by earlier reforms. On 16 April the Government, through the Minister of Justice, announced additional measures to remedy the problems of Urabá, including the establishment of a regional labour office, a branch of the Colombian Agrarian Reform Institute (INCORA), ten criminal courts and ten labour courts in Apartadó. Government authorities, at the highest level, seek not only to find and punish those responsible for the murders, but also to improve the conditions of life of all the inhabitants of the area, through agrarian reform, housing and education projects and the marketing of agricultural products.

&htab;618.&htab;The Government adds that it is also important to note the surprising position adopted by the CUT and its affiliate banana trade unions towards the Government's measures; although many of their members have been among the victims of this wave of violence, the CUT has not endorsed the strengthening of the military presence in the area or supported the other economic and social measures which have been proposed. The situation in this area is very serious, and the authorities intend to confront it with equally serious and effective measures with a view to restoring peace, by taking whatever economic, social and military measures prove necessary to counteract the wave of violence that is sweeping over the country.

&htab;619.&htab;In a subsequent communication, the Government states that the difficult situation which had been essentially confined to the region of Urabá has unfortunately spread to departments such as Cesar and Córdoba, which until recently had enjoyed peace, prosperity and tranquillity. It is not easy to identify the reason for this situation, and it is therefore difficult to find solutions since the authorities must fight against, not one, but many enemies, all of which are protected by the fear they instil in the populations of these regions, mostly peasants engaged in farming. Given the complexity of the complaints presented to the Committee on Freedom of Association, their analysis requires an in-depth study because the solution to these problems implies the adoption of extensive social and economic policy measures. The Government will continue to submit to the ILO information concerning measures adopted to guarantee peace and the respect of human rights throughout the national territory - a task which it recognises as its obligation and sincere desire. In this sense, the Government attaches information published by the country's leading daily newspaper concerning the Inter-Parliamentary Union's recognition of Colombia's efforts in the defence of human rights, and its co-operation with Argentina and Peru in the fight against drug trafficking. The Government also attaches several reports which provide additional information concerning the measures adopted in the region of Urabá, the proposals formulated by the Military Commander concerning his open policies, the important economic and social development programme unveiled by the Governor of Antioquia, the measures to be taken in violent areas within the framework of the National Rehabilitation Plan, the coverage of a further 23 municipalities by this plan, and the very important scheme to provide protection to witnesses who collaborate with authorities in the prosecution of criminals. This scheme will complement existing standards. Likewise, by means of Decree No. 769, the Government created positions for four civilian assistants to the Military Commander of Urabá: a delegate for agrarian reform, a delegate for worker/employer relations and the protection of human dignity, a delegate for the restoration of peace, who represents the Presidential Commission for Reconciliation, Normalisation and Rehabilitation, and a human rights inspector, who represents the Presidential Commission on the Defence, Protection and Promotion of Human Rights. The Government hopes that the various measures adopted to bring peace to Urabá will soon begin to bear fruit and restore the prosperity that this region once enjoyed.

&htab;620.&htab;As regards the allegations presented by the WCOTP, the Government states that it is clear that the country is experiencing difficulties in maintaining public order, but emphasises that this situation is affecting all groups of the population equally (politicians, employers, the judiciary and workers), and that it never has been a question of trade union persecution. The National Constitution and legislation enshrine the inalienable right of all persons to life, work and association, and the authorities are doing everything possible to guarantee the exercise of these rights. The teaching sector has certainly been among those most affected by the actions of criminals sponsored by unknown far-right groups which have taken it upon themselves to fight leftist guerillas and movements. However, it is completely groundless to allege that the Republic's armed forces are implicated in murders and death threats: indeed, the armed forces have sacrificed the greatest number of lives in the struggle against subversion and for the protection of the rights of all citizens. The Government does not understand why these trade union organisations, which know full well the delicate situation prevailing in the country, and are aware that the violence comes from several sources, as reported to the ILO in previous communications, continue to accuse the armed forces of crimes which they have not committed, and to associate them with other forces which do in fact seek to assume power and control over the civilian authorities. The decree of April 1969 to which the WCOTP makes reference, was issued by the Government in application of its powers under the state of siege to fight the outlaws who at that time were sowing terror among the peasants. The sections cited by the complainant organisation do not violate any right; their lawful aim was to allow groups of civilians living in those areas to exercise their legitimate right to self-defence against unjustified aggression. The collaboration with the military units is indispensable since these units need the help of civilian groups to defend the inhabitants. The statement that "some of the murders were committed by persons in uniform", is ambiguous, because it suggests that these murders were committed by persons in the armed forces; this is inaccurate, because it is well known that the guerillas routinely wear uniforms which should be worn only by the armed forces, and that in some regions military personnel are not the only ones wearing military uniforms.

&htab;621.&htab;The Government also states that its strategy to eradicate violence consists of a four-pronged approach: to rally citizens and reactivate their solidarity and respect for human rights; to implementan operative unit for the defence and promotion of human rights, under the co-ordination of the Presidential Commission; to implement a social development plan financed by public investment; to enhance the operational and financial capacities of the judicial system. Likewise,through the Presidential Commissions for Social Development, for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights, and for Reconciliation and Normalisation, Dr. Virgilio Barco Vargas, the President of the Republic, is implementing a broad and consistent policy which complements measures to fight violence with machinery for the fight against poverty, which leads to many instances of conflict. Other information supplied by the Government is contained in the mission report. In addition, in an extensive further communication dated 20 October 1988 and received in the ILO on the eve of the Committee's meeting, the Government supplies information on the commencement of and progress in many trials concerning the murders of persons listed in the complaints (including: MARIO TABORDA, WALTER ROLDAN, RUBEN PINEDA, GUSTAVO MAYA CARVASAL, MARIO ACORO CUERO, APOLINO HERNANDEZ DE LA ROSA, GILBERTO CHAVERRA ROBLEDO, JESUS CORDOBA QUINTERO, CAMILO RENTERIA, LUIS ANTONIO MARTINEZ DUARTE, JUAN JOSE HERNANDEZ DUENAS, HAMET CONSUEGRA LLORENTE and ALIRIO ZARAZA MARTINEZ). The Government points out that it will send further information on the most recent allegations of murders and indicates that, as regards the judicial inquiry into the death of the teacher Melba Amariles Hernández, two well-known common law criminals have been identified, who apparently shot her when she resisted their theft of her car.

&htab;622.&htab;The complainant organisations also present allegations concerning the following disappearances:

- JAIME CASAS ROJAS, member of ASINORT; disappeared in Chitagá (North Santander) on 22 March 1986. - LUIS VILLADIEGO and GABRIEL HOLGUIN, banana workers affiliated with the Agricultrual Workers Trade Union of Antioquia (SINTAGRO); disappeared in April 1986 in Parabandó (Turbo, Antioquia). - MARINA ELVIA DIAZ, President of the Workers' Trade Union of Grulla; disappeared on 31 January 1987 in Itagüí (Antioquia).

- MARCIAL ALONSO GONZALEZ, employed by the Colombian Carbide Enterprise (COLCARBUROS); disappeared in Puerto Nare (Antioquia) on 9 March 1987.

- LUCIO SERRANO LUNA, employed by the Nare Cement Company, member of SUTIMAC; disappeared on 30 March 1987.

- MARLENE MEDINA GOMEZ, teacher; disappeared in Lajas, municipality of Sabana de Torres, on 15 May 1987.

- LUIS ALBERTO BUILES and ALVARO USUGA, banana workers; disappeared in Mutatá (Antioquia) on 3 June 1987.

- CHRISTIAN ROA, President of SINTRAUIS; disappeared on 27 June 1988 in Bucaramanga.

&htab;623.&htab;The complainant organisations also refer to the following assaults against trade unionists:

- on 21 March 1988, in the municipality of Puerto Nare, paramilitary forces fired on JESUS ANIBAL PARRA CASTRILLON, an official of the Cementos del Nare Trade Union, who is in a critical condition; - on 4 April 1988, in Medellín, a paramilitary group fired on and seriously wounded ASDRUBAL JIMENEZ VACCA, trade union counsel of SINTAGRO;

- on 27 February, FRANCISCO CANTILLO, a member of the executive committee of the National Association of Colombian Peasants (ANUC), was arrested by members of the armed forces. Mr. Cantillo was detained along with 15 peasants and held at the El Bagre military base. It is not known what charges have been filed against him; hovever, Mr. Cantillo does not, and has not, resorted to violence.

&htab;624.&htab;The complainant organisations also refer to other disappearances of workers, without indicating their trade union affiliation or participation in trade union activities.

&htab;625.&htab;The information supplied by the Government appears in the mission report.

&htab;626.&htab;The complainant organisations allege that on 18 February 1987, the headquarters of SINTAGRO in Turbo (Antioquia) were blown up, causing damage amounting to approximately 17 million pesos. Likewise, the complainant organisations allege that during the course of a march convened in May 1988 by trade union, political, student and civic organisations to demand the respect for life in north-east Colombia, Leonardo Chacón, leader of FECODE, and Blanca Vera, leader of a teachers' union, among others, were arrested by military forces.

&htab;627.&htab;The WCOTP also attaches a list of hundreds of teachers and leaders of teachers' trade unions who have received death threats. Mr. Abel Rodríguez Céspedes, President of the Colombian Federation of Teachers, has also received threats to his life, and requires the protection of bodyguards wherever he goes.

&htab;628.&htab;Concerning the allegations of threats to the lives of many teachers, the Government states that it will request information from the competent authorities; however, in order for these authorities to provide adequate protection, it is indispensable that persons receiving such threats file the appropriate complaints. As regards the bombing of the SINTAGRO offices, the Second Special Court of Medellín is investigating the matter. Additional information supplied by the Government concerning these allegations appears in the mission report.

&htab;629.&htab;The Workers' Central Organisation (CUT) alleges in its communication of 18 February 1988 that, during 1986, 1987 and 1988, several trade unions have been denied legal personality and the amendment of their rules, that their trade union assets have been frozen, and that the Legal Office of the Ministry of Labour contends that trade union federations do not have the right to advise trade unions at the bargaining table. As regards the denial of legal personality and the amendment of rules of various trade unions, the CUT considers that certain provisions in Colombian legislation violate Convention No. 87. In particular, the CUT refers to the following provisions of the Labour Code: ORGANISATION

SECTION 359. MINIMUM NUMBER OF MEMBERS. Every industrial association must, to be established and to continue in existence, have at least 25 members; and every employers' association must have a membership of at least five employers who are not dependent on each other in any way.

SECTION 362. RULES. The rules must contain -

&htab;(1) the title and registered address of the industrial association;

&htab;(2) the object of the industrial association;

&htab;(3) the conditions of membership and limitations of membership;

&htab;(4) the obligations and rights of members;

&htab;(5) the number of members of the central and sectional committees of management respectively, the names of the said members, the duration of their period of office and their functions; the manner of appointing and electing the said committees, the rules for their meetings, and the grounds and procedure for removal from office;

&htab;(6) the organisation of regular and exceptional committees;

&htab;(7) the amount and periods of the ordinary subscription and the frequency and mode of payment thereof;

&htab;(8) the procedure respecting the fixing and payment of extraordinary subscriptions;

&htab;(9) disciplinary measures, and grounds and procedure for the expulsion of offenders (the persons concerned being heard in every case);

(10) the dates of ordinary general meetings and committee meetings, rules of procedure at meetings, quorum, debates and voting;

(11) the rules for the administration of the property and funds of the association, for drawing up and administering budgets and for submitting accounts and issuing receipts;

(12) the rules for the liquidation of the association;

(13) such other provisions as may be deemed necessary for the proper working of the association.

SECTION 369. AMENDMENT OF RULES. Every amendment in the rules shall be approved by the association at a general meeting and must be communicated to the National Department for the Supervision of Industrial Associations of the Ministry of Labour, together with three copies of the minutes of the meeting indicating the amendments adopted, signed by every member present. The National Department for the Supervision of Industrial Associations shall make known its decision within 15 days, and within the same period the Ministry shall approve or reject the amendments, indicating in the latter case the reasons of a legal nature on which its decisions are based. SECTION 425. RULES. The term of office of regular committees of management or executive committees, the manner of their election, their composition, the quorum and frequency of ordinary general meetings or assemblies, the financial year for budgets, and the conditions under which expenses are valid, shall be governed by provisions in the rules of the federation approved by the Ministry of Labour.

SECTION 370. VALIDITY OF AMENDMENTS. No amendment of the rules of any industrial association shall be valid without the approval of the Ministry of Labour; after the amendments have been approved, the necessary changes shall be made in the appropriate documents.

&htab;LEGAL PERSONALITY

SECTION 364. APPLICATION.

1. Every application for legal personality must be submitted to the Ministry of Labour, through the National Department for the Supervision of Industrial Associations, by at least 20 founder members, each acting in person or through a person holding a special power of attorney, accompanied by the following documents, each document on unstamped paper: &htab;&htab;(a) a copy of the act of constitution of the association, with the handwritten signatures of the persons present and an indication of the number of their identity cards or the cards of persons signing on their behalf;

&htab;&htab;(b) a copy of the record of proceedings for the election of the provisional committee of management containing the same particulars as are referred to in the preceding subparagraph;

&htab;&htab;(c) a copy of the record of proceedings of the meeting in which the rules were approved;

&htab;&htab;(d) the power of attorney given to the person making the application for legal personality, if the application is not directly signed by 20 members. The said power of attorney must be given by not less than 20 principals in person to any appropriate authority for authentification; &htab;&htab;(e) two copies of the act of constitution of the association authenticated by the provisional secretary;

&htab;&htab;(f) three copies of the rules of association, authenticated by the provisional secretary:

&htab;&htab;(g) a list of the names of the members of the provisional committee of management, in triplicate, showing the nationality, occupation or trade, identity paper and permanent residence of each member;

&htab;&htab;(h) a complete list of the members of the association in triplicate, showing the nationality, sex and occupation or trade of each member;

&htab;&htab;(i) a certificate from the appropriate labour inspector to the effect that no other industrial association exists in the case of a works union which might be considered to be redundant, stating whether the founders are employers or employees in the industry or activity in question, or whether such members are professional employees in the branch of activity represented by the association, the length of service, in appropriate cases, of the members of the provisional committee of management, and containing such other pertinent facts as the inspector may deem it necessary to mention. In localities where there is no labour inspectorate, the certificate shall be delivered by the highest civil authority and shall be countersigned by the labour inspector in the nearest area.

&htab;2. The documents referred to in (a), (b) and (c) may be contained in one and the same document or written instrument.

SECTION 365. PROCEDURE. On receipt of an application, the National Department for the Supervision of Industrial Associations shall examine the aforementioned documents together with the rules of the association within a period not exceeding 15 days and shall notify the persons concerned of any observations which may arise in the course of the said examination. &htab;SECTION 366. RECOGNITION.

&htab;1. The Ministry of Labour shall grant legal personality, save where the rules of the association are repugnant to the Constitution, to the law or to public order, or infringe the special provisions of this Code.

SECTION 423. LEGAL PERSONALITY. With respect to the grant of legal personality to any federation or confederation, the same procedure shall be followed, mutatis mutandis , as in the case of industrial associations. SECTION 372. EFFECTS IN LAW OF LEGAL PERSONALITY. No industrial association may act as such or carry out the functions conferred on it by law and by its own rules or exercise its own rights without having been granted legal personality; and it shall carry out such functions and exercise such rights only for so long as such legal personality lasts.

&htab;OPERATION OF INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATIONS

SECTION 385. GENERAL MEETING. The general meeting must meet at least once every six months.

&htab;Legislative Decree No. 672/56.

SECTION 1. To hold any trade union meeting, it will suffice for the legal representative of the trade union organisation in question to give written notice at least five days in advance to the military commander and the labour inspector with jurisdiction over the area in which the meeting will be held, stating the day, time, place and agenda of the meeting.

In the case of first-level trade union's, notice may be given by the federation or confederation to which they are affiliated.

&htab;633.&htab;In its communications of 10 February and 8 March 1988, the Railway Workers' Trade Union (SINTRAFERRAT), a sectoral-level trade union, alleges that the collective agreement signed on 26 March 1987 by the National Railway Workers' Union (SINTRAFERROVIARIOS), the leading trade union in this sector, and the National Railway Company of Colombia, included a clause which provided that "workers who are not members of SINTRAFERROVIARIOS will be required, as of the effective date of this agreement, to pay a monthly contribution equal to the ordinary trade union contribution of the members of SINTRAFERROVIARIOS"; this contribution is equivalent to 1.5 per cent of the basic monthly wage, and was justified on the basis of benefits derived from collective bargaining which would accrue to these workers. Consequently, a double trade union contribution is deducted from the wages of the members of the Railway Workers' Trade Union (the sector-level trade union). As a result, more than 1,000 members have withdrawn from the Railway Workers' Trade Union, and now belong to no union or have joined other unions. Moreover, the enterprise refuses to grant permission for time-off for trade union business to SINTRAFERRAT leaders, and refuses to give grants to members of this organisation.

&htab;634.&htab;The complainant organisation emphasises that it was not allowed to participate in the bargaining which led to the above-mentioned collective agreement, and that in spite of its appeals, the Ministry of Labour has not, to date, disallowed the double trade union deduction. Owing to the slow pace of legal proceedings, it is entirely conceivable that the trade union would have no members left by the time the courts would finally render an opinion.

&htab;635.&htab;In its communication of 3 May 1988, the Government states that the chief visiting inspector of the Inspection Office of the General Labour Inspectorate issued a resolution (No. 104) on 18 October1982 ordering the National Railway Company of Colombia to stop deducting a double trade union contribution from the wages of workers belonging to SINTRAFERRAT, which was the net effect of withholding sums for trade union dues and for benefits derived from collective bargaining. This resolution was appealed by the employer, but upheld by the Chief of the Inspection Office, by means of a resolution (No. 003) of 8 April 1983. Several years later, in response to a new complaint filed by SINTRAFERRAT's legal representative on the same grounds, the visiting Inspection Office, then headed by a different person, issued a resolution (No. 172) dated 11 June 1987, which again ordered the enterprise not to carry out the double deduction from the wages of workers who belong to that trade union. Again the resolution was appealed, this time by the president of the National Railway Workers' Union (SINTRAFERROVIARIOS), and eventually repealed by means of a resolution (No. 202) of 29 July 1987, issued by the visiting Labour Inspection Office. The official in question based her decision to repeal resolution No. 172 on her determination that the legitimacy of a double deduction for trade union dues from the wages of persons who enjoy the benefits of a collective agreement signed by the national trade union is a legal problem, the solution of which hinges on certain rights which come under the jurisdiction of the labour courts, rather than the labour authorities (section 486 of the Labour Code, substituted by section 41 of Legislative Decree 2351 of 1965). The Government adds that the Council of State declared in an opinion of 12 September 1980 that:

There is a clear-cut and definitive line which distinguishes the competence of the ordinary labour courts and that of the administrative authorities. The former are responsible for hearing and settling legal disputes by establishing the basic rights of the parties concerned; the latter are responsible for the administrative monitoring of compliance with social standards within the context of objective situations; at no time does this entail a jurisdictional function. In the exercise of their tasks, these officials are authorised to levy fines, but only within the sphere of their competence.

&htab;636.&htab;The Government states that SINTRAFERRAT's attorney, Dr. Augusto A. Cepeda Romero, requested the General Director of Labour to overturn resolution No. 202, which in turn had repealed resolution No. 172; however, the General Director of Labour, in accordance with the legislation in force, stated that he was not competent to act in this matter owing to the fact that he had earlier rendered an opinion in the case in question. The Minister of Labour therefore appointed an ad hoc General Director of Labour, who, by means of resolution No. 03555 of 20 October 1987, refused to repeal the contested resolution, thus exhausting the avenues of administrative recourse.

&htab;637.&htab;The Government concludes that the Ministry's actions in this case were fully in keeping with the law, both as regards the powers granted to this administrative authority, and as regards the impartiality incumbent on the officials concerned. Therefore, SINTRAFERRAT has no choice but to submit the dispute to the labour courts.

&htab;638.&htab;As regards the granting of bursaries to SINTRAFERRAT members,and the granting of time-off for trade union business, the Government states that it is important to recall that the trade union merged with SINTRAFERROVIARIOS, and then subsequently split off from it. During the time in which they were merged, the time-off and the bursaries were granted by the enterprise within the framework of a single agreement, but that following the separation, the enterprise granted such privileges only to the national trade union, on the basis of its majority status. However, section 8 of chapter IV of the current collective agreement states that the enterprise shall comply "with agreements with the Antioquia railway trade union and the extinct SINTRAFERRAT trade union". The failure to comply with this clause led to new proceedings before the labour administration, resulting in the issuance of resolution No. 261 of 18 November 1987, which ordered the National Railway Company of Colombia to grant time-off for trade union business to SINTRAFERRAT representatives within the delay specified in the resolution, in accordance with the collective agreement signed in 1973, and to restore the bursaries for members of that organisation. An appeal was filed and the matter is now before the Labour Inspectorate. The decision will be immediately communicated to the ILO. However, it would seem necessary to emphasise that there has been no negligence on the part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security in this matter; in spite of the difficulties which naturally arose from the merger and subsequent separation of the national trade union and the first-level union, the measures authorised by law have been taken in response to actions of the enterprise which might undermine the rights of workers belonging to the latter union.

&htab;639.&htab;In a subsequent communication dated 29 June 1988, the Government states that by means of resolution No. 012 of 28 April 1988, the appeal filed by the National Railway Company of Colombia was denied and the decision ordering the enterprise to re-establish time-off for trade union business for SINTRAFERRAT's representatives was upheld. [See also the mission report.]

&htab;640.&htab;In communications of 14 June and 22 July 1988, the International Union of Food and Allied Workers (IUF) alleges that following the breakdown of negotiations between the Workers' Union of Bavaria S.A. and its affiliates and the Compañía Cervecera Colombiana Bavaria, over the closing of a malt-house in Bogotá, in violation of clause 12 of the current collective agreement, the workers took over the plant and called a general strike of all Bavaria S.A. enterprises. The IUF adds that the above-mentioned malt-house is currently surrounded by police forces, and it fears that they will attempt to remove the strikers by force. The IUF adds that police forces in the city of Pasto, where one of Bavaria S.A.'s enterprises is located, have visited the homes of workers and escorted them by force to their places of work. Lastly, the enterprise ordered all its plants in the region to deny trade union leaders access to the workplace. In its last communication, the complainant organisation attaches an agreement dated 16 June 1988 between the enterprise and the trade union, in which the enterprise agrees to suspend the disciplinary measures which had been adopted because of the dispute, and agrees to find other positions within the enterprise for the unionised workers who had been working at the malt-house which was closed down.

&htab;641.&htab;In its communication of 5 July 1988, the Government states that it requested the Industrial Relations Office to supply information concerning the negotiations in this case, on the reasons for the alleged closing of a malt-house in Bogotá, and on the other allegations presented by the complainant. Nevertheless, the Government states that the breakdown of talks between the employer and the trade union organisation during bargaining over workers' demands is a very common phenomenon, and that the parties generally resume the talks following a recess during which they undertake an objective analysis of the situation. The breakdown in the talks does not give workers the right to occupy the enterprise's premises, an action which is punishable under section 285 of the Criminal Code. ("A person who occupies another person's residence or property, either through trickery, in secrecy, or against the wishes of anyone having the right to deny such occupation, shall be subject to a term of imprisonment ranging from three to 18 months.") Section 287 of the same Code provides that the above-mentioned penalty may be reduced by half when the actions in question occur at the workplace. Consequently, it is clear that the members of the Workers' Union of Bavaria S.A., who have alleged the violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, are illegally occupying the company's premises, and that their actions are not justified either by national legislation or international instruments. Moreover, aside from the fact that the occupation of said premises is illegal, the presence of police forces around the plant is merely aimed at safeguarding the safety of the strikers and protecting the premises. In fact, section 448 of the Labour Code, replaced by section 33 of Legislative Decree 2351 of 1965, establishes that while a strike is in progress, the police shall be responsible for ensuring that it is conducted in a peaceful manner and shall at all times take preventive and punitive action as lies within their power, to ensure that the strikers and any persons connected with the strikers do not depart from the lawful purposes of the strike, or attempt to make use of it to promote unrest or commit offences. The persons who are illegally occupying the Bavaria plant need not fear any violence from the police, but should know that the police will enter the premises, in accordance with their functions, if the strikers resort to violence.

&htab;642.&htab;The Government states that it has requested the Police Chief of Nariño to supply information concerning the allegations that the police in Pasto forcefully escorted workers to their workplace, even though the Government considers this charge highly improbable, since no one in Colombia is ever forced to go to work.

&htab;643.&htab;Additional information supplied by the Government concerning the allegations is contained in the mission report.

&htab;644.&htab;In its communication of 28 June 1988, the National Railway Workers' Union (SINTRAFERROVIARIOS) alleges that beginning in 1987 the Board of Directors of the National Railway Company of Colombia arbitrarily and illegally decided to cut back, reduce and eliminate extralegal benefits due under collective agreement which the employees of the National Railways have enjoyed for approximately 20 years. Thus, by means of Executive Decrees Nos. 1044 of 1987 and 510 of 1988, the enterprise reclassified 478 "official employees" as public servants, basing its decision on a statutory reform (Decree No. 1242 of 1970), and thereby violating the employment contracts of 478 "official employees", as well as the collective agreements which cover these workers, while reducing their social benefits and job security. The complainant organisation explains that a worker's status as an "official employee" or public servant does not arise from an arbitrary classification adopted by the management of a state-owned industrial or commercial enterprise, but from the legislative branch (the Congressof the Republic). From a constitutional standpoint, none of the administrators of the National Railway Company of Colombia (the Ministry of Public Works, the board of directors, the general manager, etc.) are competent to decide which workers are "official employees" and which are public servants, as has been repeatedly emphasised by the Council of State.

&htab;645.&htab;SINTRAFERROVIARIOS adds that the enterprise was duly authorised to classify its workers in 1970 (Decree No. 1242 of 25 July 1970), but that it has invoked expired or prescribed powers for its recent reclassification of staff.

&htab;646.&htab;In the opinion of SINTRAFERROVIARIOS, Convention No. 87 has been violated inasmuch as this reclassification has reduced the trade union's membership by 500 persons; the same can be said of Convention No. 98, since the suppression of benefits due to several hundred workers who had enjoyed these benefits for more than 20 years infringes the collective agreement of 1987-88, and of Convention No. 135, inasmuch as the reclassification of trade union leaders as public servants violates trade union privilege and seriously undermines the very existence of the trade union organisation.

&htab;647.&htab;The Government states that on the basis of a complaint submitted by SINTRAFERROVIARIOS, the Industrial Relations Office of the Ministry of Labour is currently engaged in an investigation into the alleged anti-union harassment by the National Railway Company of Colombia. As regards the reclassification undertaken within the enterprise, the Government states that at no time was there any violation or disavowal of acquired rights, much less of human rights, in the reclassification of the staff of the state-owned industrial and commercial enterprise known as the National Railway Company of Colombia: the jurisprudence of the Council of State and the Supreme Court of Justice is clear and consistent, to the effect that public lawdoes not recognise acquired rights, because this is contrary to the State's dynamics. As regards the benefits which SINTRAFERROVIARIOS views as acquired rights that have been disavowed, the Court stated that such rights are not established in respect of a specific person, but objectively in respect of a specific function. Thus, they constitute a status, an objective legal and regulatory juridical situation, and as such, they may be modified at any time.

&htab;648.&htab;The Government attaches an opinion issued by the General Secretary of the Public Service Administrative Department which corroborates its statements, and which recounts the historical evolution of labour relations between the State and its employees, as well as the characteristics of the current system and the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Council of State which confirm that there are no acquired rights under public law. [See also the mission report.]

&htab;650.&htab;In the first place, the Committee must express its deep concern over the allegations involving the violent death and disappearance of over 200 trade union leaders and trade unionists since 1986, the assaults, arrests, and threats to the lives of hundreds of trade unionists, and the attack on the headquarters of a trade union. The Committee is shocked by the very high number of murders and disappearances, and expresses its particular preoccupation in noting that such a high number of trade union leaders and unionists, most of whom are linked in one way or another to the CUT, the most representative organisation in the country, were among the victims. There is no doubt that the Committee now finds itself confronted with one of the most serious cases it has received concerning the respect for the right to life.

&htab;651.&htab;The Committee observes that according to the mission report, the complex, difficult and serious situation and violent climate prevalent in Colombia have led to a series of highly disturbing events, which have been confirmed by most of the people interviewed by the Director-General's representative: (1) although this wave of violence affects all social and political sectors of the population, and although trade unionists do not account for the majority of its victims, they are nevertheless a primary target; (2) most of the murdered trade unionists have been killed by hired assassins and by the so-called paramilitary groups which are largely financed by persons representing substantial economic interests, large landowners and drug traffickers; these paramilitary groups do not discriminate on the basis of trade unionism, but attack all persons whom they rightly or wrongly believe to be progressives or leftists - in other words, all who advocate significant reforms (human rights, constitutional amendments, agrarian reform, respect for trade union rights, and improvements in the distribution of wealth); (3) there are several contradictory versions as regards the involvement of members of the armed forces and police in these murders and disappearances; according to the Goverment on the one hand, these are isolated cases involving individuals acting in a private capacity (the Presidential Commission for Human Rights referred to only 16 cases out of a total of 700 political murders, in which charges have been filed against military personnel); according to the CUT, on the other hand, there have been many cases in which even high-ranking military officers were involved; (4) one of the factors promoting the spread of violence is the impunity enjoyed by the killers, which is intimately related to the inefficiency of the judicial system (which is slow and antiquated and lacks sufficient human and material resources), and to the threats to the lives of judges and witnesses.

&htab;652.&htab;The Committee takes note of the Government's statements concerning the causes of the violence, and of its resolve to fight against all forms of private violence and for the promotion of respect for human rights. The Committee notes with interest that a series of positive measures have been taken in this connection: for instance, the actions taken in certain combat zones to achieve a greater institutional presence (judges, labour inspectors, etc.), as well as programmes of economic and social development which include, among others, public investment, agrarian reform, the construction of housing and schools, etc., with a view to eradicating poverty; the investigation of paramilitary groups by the Deputy Attorney of the armed forces; the recent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which removes from military jurisdiction the examination of actions of persons in the armed forces against civilians, thus confining military jurisdiction to actions undertaken by military personnel in the line of duty; the Government's strategy to improve the operations and financing of the court system; the creation of a special judicial police force to investigate crimes and prosecute the guilty parties; the creation of a Presidential Commission for Human Rights; the establishment of a witness protection plan; and many measures against trafficking, etc.

&htab;653.&htab;However, the Committee notes that the measures adopted by the authorities to eradicate violence have not met with the desired results. On the contrary, the situation as regards the protection of the right to life has worsened considerably since the last direct contacts mission in 1986, and the number of murdered trade unionists and trade union leaders has increased considerably.

&htab;654.&htab;In this connection, the Committee wishes to lay special emphasis on two fundamental points raised in the mission report with a view to curbing the violence directed at the trade union movement: the adoption of vigorous measures to dismantle the paramilitary groups, and a radical strengthening of the financial and human resources of the judiciary. As regards the first point, the Committee stresses that the Government has identified 138 paramilitary groups, although some of them operate under several names; that, according to the Attorney General, the areas in which some of these groups operate are known; and that certain paramilitary groups may have co-ordinated their activities at the national level. Likewise, the Committee emphasises that, according to the mission report, the press makes mention of the so-called self-defence committees (composed of members of the civilian population in areas where guerillas are present, and which have certain defence functions, but also collaborate with the army in military operations), suggesting that some of these committees may be engaging in terrorist activities. Although it notes that the regulation of 1969 concerning self-defence committees, to which one of the complainant organisations has made reference, is no longer in force, the Committee requests the Government to supply full informationconcerning the existence and content of provisions concerning the self-defence committees, any monitoring of their actions, and any sentences which have been handed down for abuse of power. Likewise, the Committee requests the Government to forward the results of the investigation of paramilitary groups undertaken by the Deputy Attorney of the armed forces.

&htab;655.&htab;As regards the strengthening of the human and financial resources of the courts, the Committee highlights the importance of the judiciary since the fundamental principle of the Committee's jurisprudence in cases of murder, disappearances or physical attacks on trade unionists, stresses the need for an independent judicial investigation which aims at clarifying the facts and identifying and prosecuting the guilty parties.

&htab;656.&htab;In this connection, the Committee notes the Government's statement that all offences (murder, assault and battery, kidnapping, etc.) are always investigated by police and judicial authorities. The Committee observes that the Government reports the opening of judicial investigations with respect to 182 of the alleged 217 murders of trade unionists; the Government has also indicated that two persons reported as murdered (Héctor Julio Mejía and Ramón Restrepo) were not, in fact, murdered but merely injured, and that there is no evidence in official records of the alleged murder of another person (Anibal Díaz). Thus, the Government has not yet provided information on the alleged murders of 32 persons (15 of which have been reported in the more recent allegations). According to information drawn from court documents and provided by the Government, it appears that in some cases in which judicial inquiries were opened (Luis Ovidio Estrada Betancourt, José Uriel Ramírez Millán, Angel Manuel Gutiérrez Rodríguez, Matías Barraza Utria and Melba Amariles Hernández), the murders had no connection to freedom of association but were simply accidental deaths or homicides with strictly personal motives, or which took place within the context of crimes against property. According to information supplied by the Government, it has been possible in ten cases (including the massacres at the "Honduras" and "La Negra" farm where 21 persons were killed, and at "La Mejor Esquina"farm where 24 persons were killed, and at "Coquitos" - 20 persons killed) to arrest some or all of the presumed authors of these crimes, and in six other cases, to identify the presumed authors. As stated in the mission report, there has been some improvement, small as it is, in comparison with the 1986 mission, as regards the number of cases in which judicial inquiries have led to the identification and arrest of suspects.

&htab;657.&htab;The Committee requests the Government to send observations concerning the alleged murders of 32 trade unionists in respect of whom no information has been received (see Annex I), and to keep it informed of developments in the judicial inquiries in progress concerning the murders of the trade unionists identified in its earlier replies.

&htab;658.&htab;As regards the disappearance of trade unionists, the Committee notes that there is no official record of the disappearance of Jaime Casas Rojas, and that judicial inquiries have been opened into the disappearances of Marlene Medina Gómez, Luis Alberto Builes, Alvaro Usuga, Marina Elvia Díaz, Marcial Alonso González and Christian Roa. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in these judicial inquiries and to send its observations concerning the disappearance of trade unionists Luis Villadiego, Gabriel Holguin and Lucio Serrano Luna.

&htab;659.&htab;The Committee notes that the physical assaults of Jesus Aníbal Parra Castrillón and Asdrúbal Jiménez Vacca are under criminal investigation, and that Francisco Cantillo, who had been arrested by the army and charged with inciting public unrest, was released soon thereafter. The Committee also notes that there is no record of the arrest of Leonardo Chacón and Blanca Vera. Likewise, the Committee notes that the bombing of SINTAGRO headquarters is also under judicial investigation.

&htab;660.&htab;As regards the alleged threats to the lives of hundreds of trade unionists (identified by name), especially in the teaching sector, the Committee takes note of the statements made by the authorities to the Director-General's representative, to the effect that specific complaints may be presented before the competent authorities, and that in certain cases where this has been done, the authorities have honoured the requests for official protection for trade union leaders who have received threats. The Government states that these threats are part of the wave of violence that is sweeping over the country and that it will investigate the seriousness of reported threats. The Committee emphasises that the fear induced by such threats has inevitable repercussions on the exercise of trade union activities, and that the exercise of these activities is possible only in a context of respect for basic human rights and in an atmosphere free of violence, pressure and threats of any kind.

&htab;661.&htab;As regards the allegations dealing with legislation and practice concerning the establishment of trade union organisations and the modification of their rules, the Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour set up a tripartite commission to consider possible amendments to the Labour Code, and that, according to statistics, legalpersonality was granted to 103 associations in 1986, but denied to nine; granted to 101 in 1987, but denied to 34; and granted to 69, but denied to 25 in 1988 (through August). As regards the modificationof rules in 1986, 154 were approved and five were denied; in 1987, 128 were approved, and eight denied; and in 1988 (through August), 86 wereapproved and eight denied. The Committee takes note of the examples provided by the Government of the legal grounds for its refusal to recognise legal personality in certain cases, and of the description of specific procedural steps within the Ministry of Labour. In this connection, the Committee observes that the current term of 15 working days (established in section 365 of the Labour Code) is inadequate, given the great number of requests for legal personality and the insufficient number of officials to handle these requests.

&htab;662.&htab;Moreover, the Committee notes that the workers' centrals interviewed by the mission declared that the recognition of legal personality or the approval of modifications of rules is denied with a certain frequency (this appears to be substantiated by the Government's own statistics), and that the corresponding procedures are inordinately slow. Likewise, according to these workers' confederations, the Ministry of Labour does not have a specific policy in this regard, and in some instances its officials at the national and local levels have been bribed by certain employers.

&htab;663.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government, which itself recognises that the statutory time-limits are unrealistic, to take the necessary measures to speed up the processing of requests for the recognition of legal personality of trade union associations and the approval of modifications of their rules, and to undertake an administrative inquiry into the alleged corruption of certain officials, both at the national and local levels, which according to the workers' centrals, results in the denial of legal personality, the refusal to approve the modification of the rules, or unreasonable delays.

&htab;664.&htab;As regards legislative provisions concerning the recognition of legal personality which have been contested by the complainant organisations, the Committee wishes to emphasise that, in general, it would be advisable to simplify the processing procedures and the numerous formal requirements, with a view to streamlining the recognition of legal personality. The Committee refers this aspect of the case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations so that it may examine the provisions criticised by the complainants within the broader context of trade union legislation as a whole.

&htab;665.&htab;As regards the assistance provided by the advisers of a trade union central to the leaders of a first-level trade union in collective bargaining, and more specifically at the bargaining table, the Committee notes that, according to the mission report, the Government is not opposed to such assistance, and that in fact, the Ministry of Labour has intervened in specific cases to allow such assistance. The Committee notes that the tripartite commission set up to consider amendments of labour legislation is studying this question.

&htab;666.&htab;As regards Legislative Decree No. 672/56 which requires advance notice to be given to the labour inspector and to the chief of the military brigade prior to any trade union meeting, the Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security informed the Director-General's representative that this Decree was linked to the state of siege and that it expired when the state of siege terminated.

&htab;667.&htab;As regards Case No. 1429, the Committee must first regret the failure of the complainant organisation (the National Workers' Union of Olivetti Colombiana S.A.) to co-operate with the ILO (it failed to provide the additional information requested), with the mission (it failed to attend the meeting it had scheduled), and with the Ministry of Labour (failing on three occasions to meet with the authorities in their administrative investigation of a complaint filed by the trade union).

&htab;668.&htab;The Committee notes that, according to statements made to the mission by the representative of an organisation to which the Olivetti trade union is affiliated, the allegations of anti-union dismissals and the deterioration of working conditions are part of a series of measures taken by the enterprise to reduce production costs; these measures led to a substantial reduction of staff through dismissals and changes in the employment relationship between the enterprise and its full-time employees. The Committee notes that according to the above-mentioned trade union representative, at the outset these measures had deliberately targeted leaders and members of the trade union, and had subsequently been extended to other workers. The Committee notes that the Olivetti trade union is on the verge of dissolution owing to the fact that its membership may fall below the minimum statutory requirement (25 workers), and that its few remaining leaders are looking after their own interests.

&htab;669.&htab;Given these circumstances, and considering the Olivetti tradeunion's failure to collaborate with the ILO, the Committee considers that this case does not warrant further examination. However, in view of the enterprise's handling of the dismissals, it wishes to recall the principle contained in Recommendation No. 143 concerning protection and facilities to be afforded to workers' representatives in the undertaking, and specifically to the "recognition of a priority to be given to workers' representatives with regard to their retention in employment in case of reduction of the workforce".

&htab;670.&htab;As regards Case No. 1436, the principal question concerns the allegedly excessive trade union deduction from the wages of workersbelonging to SINTRAFERRAT, owing to the benefits which they enjoy as a result of the collective agreement signed between the National Railway Company of Colombia and another trade union (SINTRAFERROVIARIOS), which is the majority trade union in the sector. The representatives of SINTRAFERRAT reported the following deductions from the wages of the enterprise's employees:

- members of SINTRAFERRAT (the complainant organisation): the standard trade union dues (1 per cent of wages per month), plus a fee for collective agreement benefits (1.5 per cent of wages per month);

- members of SINTRAFERROVIARIOS (the organisation which negotiated the collective agreement): the standard trade union dues (1.5 per cent of wages per month) plus the equivalent of three days of wages for collective agreement benefits (a one-time deduction throughout the life of the collective agreement);

- non-unionised workers (1.5 per cent of wages per month).

The Committee also notes that officials from the Ministry of Labour and Social Security stated to the mission that it was their policy to discourage the practice of a double deduction; likewise, according to information supplied by the Government, the specific question of the double deduction from the wages of SINTRAFERRAT members was submitted by way of appeal to the Ministry, which ultimately decided that the point of contention arose from "a controversy of a judicial nature, the solution of which implied the determination of certain rights which fell beyond the competence of the administrative authority, and was proper for the labour courts".

&htab;671.&htab;The Committee wishes to point out that in previous cases in which it had been alleged that a deduction from wages was made or payment of a fee was imposed by legislation in return for benefits derived from collective bargaining, the Committee has insisted on the following principle: "In a situation under which the bargaining agent legally enjoys the right of exclusive representation of all the workers in a unit, the compulsory payment to the bargaining agent of a fixed sum of money by non-members of the bargaining agent in return for the benefits enjoyed by them under the collective agreement would not appear to be incompatible with the principles of freedom of association. However, the sum fixed by law should not be so low as to encourage withdrawal from membership of the bargaining agent or so high as to place an excessive financial burden on workers who pay contributions to another union of their choice" [see 187th report, Case No. 796 (Bahamas), para. 242]. Indeed, too high a sum might well undermine the right of workers to join an organisation of their own choosing, enshrined in Article 2 of Convention No. 87.

&htab;672.&htab;In the case of SINTRAFERRAT, the members of this organisationare required, not by law, but by a collective agreement, to pay a contribution to SINTRAFERROVIARIOS (the organisation that negotiated the collective agreement) for the benefits derived from the agreement, equal to that paid by the members of SINTRAFERROVIARIOS as ordinary trade union dues. Taking into account the peculiarities of the Colombian system of industrial relations, and considering the drastic drop in the membership of SINTRAFERRAT owing to the double trade union deduction, the Committee requests the competant authorities to take measures, in particular through the mediation of the Ministry of Labour, with a view to assisting the trade unions concerned in reaching an agreement concerning the amount of deductions for benefits derived from the collective agreement.

&htab;673.&htab;Lastly, the Committee notes that the question of grants for SINTRAFERRAT has been resolved, and that an administrative resolution ordered the restitution of 12 periods of trade union leave to SINTRAFERRAT. The Committee notes, however, that this trade union leave has in fact not yet been restituted, and expresses the hope that the difficulties which have arisen owing to the procedures adopted by the enterprise in application of the above-mentioned administrative resolution will soon be overcome.

&htab;674.&htab;As regards Case No. 1457, the Committee notes that the Bavaria S.A. enterprise and its trade union signed an agreement which settled the dispute caused by the closure of a malt-house in Bogotá, it being clearly understood that the workers concerned would not be dismissed, but transferred to another of the enterprise's plants in Bogotá. Moreover, the Committee notes that the representative of the Bavaria S.A. trade union failed to keep an appointment with the mission, and that the Government has categorically denied that the police used force to compel the workers to go to work, or that workers were in any way at risk. According to the Government, the police merely ensured that workers who wished to work could do so. In these circumstances, and in view of the above-mentioned agreement, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.

&htab;675.&htab;As regards Case No. 1465, the Committee notes that the National Railway Workers' Union (SINTRAFERROVIARIOS) has alleged that, on the basis of executive decrees issued by the Board of Directors of the National Railway Company of Colombia, the enterprise has illegally reclassified 478 "official employees" as public servants, thus undermining their job security and a number of benefits stipulated in collective agreements. In this connection, it should be noted that public servants, unlike "official employees", may be freely appointed and dismissed, and are not entitled to enter into collective agreements.

&htab;676.&htab;The Committee takes note of the Government's description of the guarantees provided in the deliberations concerning the reclassification, its justification of the same, and its assertion that the persons concerned may file administrative appeals.

&htab;677.&htab;The Committee considers that it is not competent to issue an opinion concerning the legality or constitutionality of the reclassification in question, and in general, of reclassifications in other state-owned commercial or industrial enterprises. However, it wishes to emphasise that within the framework of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the legal status of Colombian public servants is not satisfactory, to the extent that the workers of state-owned commercial or industrial enterprises should have the right to negotiate collectiveagreements, enjoy suitable protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and enjoy the right to strike, provided that the interruption of services does not endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee wishes to recall that it has had occasion in the past to address similar questions concerning the legal status of public servants from the standpoint of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 [see, for example, 236th Report, Case No. 1248 (Colombia), paras. 339 and 3432.]. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that legislation grants to public servants the basic guarantees and rights deriving from Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

&htab;First of all, general allegations will be examined, followed by information on trade unionists.

&htab;1. &htab;General allegations

&htab;&htab;(a) &htab;Summary of the allegations of &htab;&htab; &htab;trade union organisations

&htab;The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) states in its communication of 29 February 1988 that it has noted with concern a considerable increase of violence in Colombia over the last two years, largely directed at trade union leaders and peasant leaders,who have been killed simply because they have defended the legitimate trade union rights and interests of workers. Several assaults and murders are reported almost every day, leaving thousands of persons dead and clearly showing that Colombia is experiencing a period of acute violence.

&htab;In general, the acts of violence in Colombia are attributed to several paramilitary groups and hired assassins linked to drug traffickers, leftist guerrilla forces and common criminals. All of these groups are allowed to operate with immpunity. In October last, the Department of the Interior published a list of 138 paramilitary groups operating in the country; however, the Government seems incapable of identifying and dismantling them.

&htab;The ICFTU emphasises the intimate relationship which exists between the effective realisation of human and trade union rights, on the one hand, and the fight against violence in its various manisfestations, on the other. The violence in Colombia today stands in the way of the exercise of human and trade union rights, starting with the most fundamental right: the right to life. The ICFTU points out that the Colombian trade union movement has been directly affected. In 1987, 74 trade union leaders and trade unionists were murdered.

&htab;The ICFTU adds that there are alarming signs in Colombia of the complicity of certain sectors of the State with the violation of human and trade union rights: certain more or less organised sectors within the State's institutions use their authority to engage in torture, to participate in forced disappearances and to commit murder, to name only the most serious crimes. The ICFTU considers that it is the Colombian Government which must wholeheartedly investigate the forced disappearances with a view to identifying and trying those guilty of murder. The current situation in Colombia seriously undermines the freedom of the trade union movement as a whole.

&htab;The WCOTP emphasises that several paramilitary groups are active in Colombia and pose a threat to the lives of teachers and trade unionists. The Colombian armed forces are apparently implicated in murders and death threats. Section 184 of an "anti-guerrilla combat regulation" of 9 April 1969 provides for the creation of "self-defence committees". Section 185 defines such committees as "a military organisation made up of selected civilian persons in a combat area. These persons are trained and equipped to take action against guerrilla groups threatening the area, or to act in co-ordination with military units engaged in combat".

&htab;Some of these statements were reiterated in a written document handed to me by the CUT on the eve of my departure from Bogota. The trade unions' allegations will no doubt be reproduced in full in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, in accordance with the usual practice.

&htab;&htab;(b) &htab;Summary of the Government's reply &htab;&htab; &htab;communicated before the mission

&htab;The Government states that, like the complainant organisations, it is dismayed by the increase in violence in Colombia in recent years; it is doing everything possible to counter this violence and ensure that all citizens may live in peace. Unfortunately, Colombia is going through a very difficult period in its social development and historical process, in which subversive leftist groups operate, having voluntarily withdrawn from the political process; in response, severalextremist reactionary groups have taken justice into their own hands, sowing panic throughout the population. The violence attributable to drug traffickers is intimately related to that of right-wing groups: both offer financial inducements to common criminals. It is clear thatthe State must counter all sources of violence, and that it is morally,constitutionally and legally obligated to do so, because they are all disrupting life in the country and each is as dangerous as the others.

&htab;It must be stressed that the Republic's armed forces are in no way responsible for the violence which besets the country. The Colombian army and police exemplify respect for civility and democracy;many of their members have also been victims of violence. Indeed, many soldiers, officers, government officials and public servants have died in the defence of the country's institutions. It is therefore inadmissible that they be accused of promoting or causing the violent climate prevailing in this country.

&htab;As regards the allegations presented by the WCOTP, the Government states that it is clear that the country is experiencing difficulties in maintaining public order, but emphasises that this situation is affecting all population groups equally (politicians, the judiciary, employers and workers) and that it has never been a question of trade union persecution. The Decree of April 1969 referred to by the WCOTP in its communication, was issued by the Government in application of its powers under the state of siege to fight the outlaws who at that time were sowing terror among the peasants. The sections cited by the complainant organisation were aimed at enabling groups of civilians in those areas to exercise their legitimate right of self-defence against unjustified aggression. Co-operation with military units is indispensable to enable them to discharge their duty of protecting the population.

&htab;Lastly, after reiterating the arguments set out above, the Government, in a written document handed to me on the eve of my departure, stressed the importance which it attaches to the existence of a strong trade union movement which is able to participate in social and economic policy decision-making. Its replies will no doubt be reproduced in full in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, in accordance with the usual practice.

&htab;&htab;(c) &htab;Results of the mission

&htab;What struck me most about this mission in Colombia, and certainly made my task much easier, was that the accounts given by government authorities, employers, trade unions, and even independent persons, concur on a certain number of issues raised by the complaint, although they do differ on some points.

&htab;1.&htab;Although there is a long tradition of violence in Colombia, the period of violence now gripping the country is profoundly alarming to all of the persons interviewed. Not a day passes without one or more persons being murdered for ideological reasons. According to some informants, the underlying causes of this violence are to be found in the poverty in which a large part of the population lives, in the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few persons and in the ineffectiveness of the judicial system, which enables criminals to act with impunity and individuals to mete out justice themselves. There are several types of violence currently being committed. The followingare the four most prevalent: common crimes; violence resulting from guerrilla operations; drug-related violence; and that committed by paramilitary groups and hired assassins.

&htab;2.&htab;This violence affects every sector of the population: members of political parties, members of parliament, officials, trade unionists, journalists, judges, teachers, employers, and, of course, workers and peasants. All of my sources, including the CUT, admit that trade unionists do not constitute the majority of the victims. However, this category is one of the main targets. It is true that, since the last mission to Colombia in 1986, there has been a considerable increase in the number of trade unionists who have been murdered or who have disappeared (according to the allegations, the number of victims since that time is over 200). Both the Government and employers' organisations rule out any deliberate intention to persecute trade unions. The insecurity of the trade unions appears to be only one aspect of the general insecurity.

&htab;It is the view of the CUT, confirmed by the CGT and the CTC, that nearly all of the trade unionists murdered were members of that organisation. It considers that these murders were aimed at intimidating it and curbing its activities. It is true that in the banana growing region, for example, the organisation's best leaders have been killed. The number of murders has been particularly high in certain regions: the Magdalena Medio, Urabá and the Cauca valley. The Attorney-General, whose moral authority in the country is enhanced by the fact that his predecessor was murdered by terrorists at the instigation of drug traffickers, drew attention to the violence of revolutionary guerrilla groups and that of counter-revolutionary paramilitary groups financed by powerful economic circles which feel threatened by any plans to reform, as well as by drug traffickers. It is these paramilitary groups which are the most active; on this point there is a consensus between the Attorney-General, the trade unions, the Chairman of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, and employers' organisations. Their targets are not only trade unionists, but anyone who is believed, rightly or wrongly, to be progressive or left-wing, that is, anyone who favours major reform: human rights, amendment of the Constitution, agrarian reform, development of freedom of association or a more just distribution of wealth. Thus, for example, a considerable number of members of the Patriotic Union party have been victims of such attacks.

&htab;The CUT, a genuinely pluralistic organisation, has complained on several occasions that senior officers of the armed forces and certain sectors of public opinion had publicly stated that the organisations affiliated to the CUT and its members actively collaborated with the guerrillas: slogans such as "trade unionists by day, guerrilla fighters by night" or "the CUT is the trade union wing of the guerrilla" explain the large number of victims to be found among the members of this trade union confederation. This view, however, does not appear to be shared by any of the persons we met, although they do admit that such statements have been made by members of the armed forces and others. The Minister of Labour and the employers' organisations stated that the CUT is an independent organisation which has the workers' interests at heart. The representative of the armed forces said that in the past trade unionists have been implicated in subversive activities, but at present the trade union movement is an independent one. They do not, however, believe that this means that some trade unionists are not involved at times in movements related to the guerrilla, but they all rule out any participation in such activities by the CUT as an institution.

&htab;3.&htab;Most murders of trade unionists are committed by hired assassins and so-called paramilitary groups. The term "paramilitary groups", also called "self-defence groups" or citizen's defence groups, has a very broad meaning in Colombia and refers to armed groups which often have a military pattern of organisation and action and which commit homicide or acts of intimidation. There is not always a consensus as to the composition of such groups and the source of their financial support. Reference has been made to hired assassins, retired military personnel, reservists, vigilantes or activemilitary personnel. The CUT has mentioned many cases in which militarypersonnel, even high-ranking officials, are allegedly implicated; somemembers of this organisation even spoke of an involvement of certain sectors of the army, while the Government refers to isolated cases and individual behaviour. No one denies that these groups are largely financed by persons representing powerful economic interests, in particular, by major property owners and drug traffickers who have themselves become major property owners. The latter are strongly opposed to any economic or political reform which could affect their wealth and privileges; this would explain the murder of many peasants and trade unionists likely to make demands or considered to support theguerrilla movements, or to pose a threat merely by their presence in the area controlled by such persons. The Government recently identified 138 paramilitary groups. According to the Attorney-General,some of these groups appear to operate under more than one name and their areas of activity are known; some of these movements appear to have co-ordinated their activities on a nation-wide scale.

&htab;Mention should be made here of the "self-defence committees" for which provision had already been made by a military regulation of 9 April 1969 to combat the guerrilla movement, quoted above. Under this regulation, such committees, born of the insecurity prevailing in the country, are set up by the civilian population of areas where the guerrilla movements operate, for purposes of self-defence, but also to ensure co-operation with the army in military operations. Some of these committees may have switched over to terrorist activities. There is some disagreement as to whether this regulation actually exists. The trade unions maintain that it is still in force, while the Minister of Justice stated that it has fallen into abeyance. In a written communication, the Minister of Labour stated that this provision is no longer in force in so far as it authorises self-defence groups. However, subsequent information indicates that the authorities have adopted new rules in this respect. Be that as it may, it is certain that the press refers to such committees.

&htab;4.&htab;Faced with this violence, the attitude of the Government and the current operation of the judicial system have elicited much criticism. Before analysing this criticism, however, it should be pointed out that none of the persons I interviewed, including trade union leaders, stated that the Government was behind these crimes. The same applies to the armed forces as an institution. According to the Attorney-General, this does not rule out individual involvement of some civilian authorities or officers; when investigations do result in the identification of guilty parties, officers are rarely implicated. In any case, according to the Attorney-General, they are by no means acting on orders from the high command. The Presidential Adviser on Human Rights informed me that out of 700 political murders committed since the beginning of the year, military personnel were charged in only 16 cases. The CUT, on the other hand, believes that members of the armed forces are involved far more often than it is admitted, but no legal action is taken or disciplinary measures instituted against such persons. Having said this, on the eve of my departure, three officers, including a major, were arrested for involvement in murders committed at the beginning of the year.

&htab;The main reproach levelled at the Government is its failure to act. The authorities have repeatedly stated in public their commitment to peace and their desire to enforce the law. But this does not seem to lead to action with any convincing results.

&htab;As regards justice, the trade unions have repeatedly stressed the fact that investigations yield no results and that no legal action is taken against persons guilty of committing crimes. Everyone I met emphasised the impunity with which the murderers operate. This impunity generates more violence. On the one hand, the victims or their relatives tend to mete out justice themselves while the criminals, on the other hand, safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted, persist in their activities. Again, the resulting insecurity also fosters the formation of self-defence groups, some of which subsequently pursue unlawful aims.

&htab;The Attorney-General himself admitted that on the whole, the judicial system was slow, antiquated and inefficient. The judges lack material resources, are few in number, poorly paid and, faced with threats to their life, are often little inclined to prosecute guilty parties. The Minister of Labour, however, drew attention to difficulties encountered in investigations due to the fact that the Government must act strictly within the bounds of legality and that witnesses, often threatened with death, refuse to appear or to co-operate with the law. Members of the Supreme Court added that Colombian law lays down stringent requirements concerning evidence.

&htab;Criticism was also levelled at the forces of law and order. The CUT stressed that, even in areas firmly controlled by the army, because of the struggle against the guerrillas, paramilitary movements operate freely and with full impunity. The CUT believes that there is a lack of genuine political will to eradicate such movements. It added that there had never been any confrontations between the army and such movements, which implies a surprisingly passive attitude on the part of the army. Other persons questioned on this point also expressed surprise. Government officials cited certain difficulties: vast and mountainous terrain, often inadequate means of communication, and the underground nature of paramilitary groups who blend in with the population.

&htab;5.&htab;Are there any signs or hopes of change? To begin with, the Government candidly stated its willingness to combat all manifestations of private violence and to respect human rights. Mention should be made at this point of the office of Presidential Adviser on Human Rights, created ten months ago. This department aims primarily at bringing this problem to the attention of public opinion as well as students, the police and military personnel. But it also gives a hearing to anyone who feels threatened or has been arrested. In such cases, the Adviser alerts the authorities - the Governor, the Attorney-General and the chief of the local police - in order to ensure that the proceedings conform to the law or to afford protection to the victim of a threat. This department has called for thorough investigations which have led to the arrest of certain persons suspected of having committed crimes, including some military personnel. The Adviser also informed me that a special department of the judicial police has been set up to investigate persons guilty of committing acts of violence. The Minister of Labour also stated that the Prosecutor for the Armed Forces has undertaken an investigation into paramilitary groups.

&htab;Also worth mentioning is a recent decision of the Supreme Court which resulted in the withdrawal from military jurisdiction of acts committed by the armed forces against civilians. Thus, the military jurisdiction is only competent for judging acts committed by military personnel in the line of duty.

&htab;Moreover, the Government has adopted measures in certain particularly unstable areas, such as Urabá, with a view to providing a stronger institutional presence (judges, labour inspectors, etc.) and has adopted certain socio-economic measures (housing, schools, etc.).

&htab;To conclude, it would appear from specific information supplied by the Government on a large number of murders, that some improvement, however limited, has occurred since the 1986 mission as regards the number of investigations leading to the identification of suspects (in 15 cases) and to their arrest (in ten cases). Encouraging as this may be, indicating the Government's willingness to combat violence, the trade unions nevertheless consider that in view of the considerable number of murders, government measures are clearly inadequate.

&htab;It would certainly be desirable for the Government, with a view to curbing the violence besetting the trade union movement, to strengthen the staff and resources available to the judiciary power and to adopt stringent measures to dismantle the paramilitary groups.

&htab;2. &htab;Information supplied by the Government &htab; &htab;on trade unionists referred to in the &htab; &htab;lists sent by complainant organisations

&htab;&htab;(a) &htab;Trade unionists alleged to have &htab;&htab; &htab;been murdered

Death of José Elí Páez:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo. Death of Francisco Antonio Jiménez:

&htab;The Municipal Court of Chigorodó opened the investigation, which was then referred to the Higher Court of Medellín (for assignment) on 8 May 1987.

Death of Víctor Hernández:

&htab;The case has been brought before the Fourth Higher Judge of Armenia.

Deaths of Julio César Santacruz, Aurelio de Jesús Ortiz and Pedro León Pineda:

&htab;The investigation into these deaths is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Carlos Julio Ortiz:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 19th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Neiva.

Deaths of Antonio Fernández and Pedro Ezequiel Gil:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 65th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo.

Death of Juan Antonio López David:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the police inspectorate of Currulao.

Deaths of Gabriel Holguín Olave, Saúl Villada and Baldomero Mosquera:

&htab;The investigation into these deaths is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Deaths of Luis Enrique España, Luis Felipe Murillo and Luis Carlos Torres:

&htab;These investigations are being conducted by the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo. Death of José Lealdo Herrera Cano:

&htab;The Fourth Higher Judge of Medellín stated that the case had been referred to the Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Itagüi, which is competent in this case.

Death of Oscar Darío Torres Zapata:

&htab;The investigation was assigned to the police inspectorate of Apartadó by the 47th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of the same locality.

Death of José María Imbett Arrieta:

&htab;The 11th Higher Judge of Medellín stated that proceedings have been instituted against an unnamed person in connection with the death of the above-mentioned person, which occurred on 11 November 1986. The investigation was opened by the 47th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó but it has unfortunately not been possible to indict anyone, since the evidence gathered is not sufficient for charges to be brought.

Deaths of Mario Correz and Inés Arrieta:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Death of Julio César Uribe Rúa:

&htab;The Chief of the Police Department of Boyacá stated that an examination of the archives of the Eighth District has revealed that Mr. Julio César Uribe Rúa, President of the Workers' Union of the Nare Cement Works, a member of the executive of the National Federation of Workers in the Cement Industry (FENALTRACONCEM) (an affiliate of the CUT) and a leader of the Patriotic Union, died on 8 December 1986 at 1 p.m. on a bus belonging to the CONORTE enterprise at the transportationterminal of Puerto Boyacá.

&htab;The 19th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Puerto Boyacá (Boyacá) stated in report No. 272 that his office had opened an investigation, No. 351, on 9 December 1986 into this person's death; evidence was gathered as far as possible and, after the preliminary investigation had been completed, the case was referred to the Higher Magistrate of the town of Tunja on 27 February 1987. It was then referred to the Sixth Higher Court of that town, which referred it to the 19th CriminalExamining Magistrate's Court of Puerto Boyacá. The latter requested the authorisation of the Boyacá Sectional Directorate of Criminal Investigations to send two of its agents to the district of La Sierra (Puerto Nare-Antioquia) in order to hear the evidence of witnesses. In accordance with the provisions of the new Code of Penal Procedure, the investigation was again entered in the roll of the 19th Court, under No. 107, page 107, volume I. Inquiries were made with the result that evidence was gathered against a certain person - whose name the magistrate refrained from mentioning in view of the secrecy of the investigation - suspected of involvement in the murder, against whom an arrest warrant was issued to the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) of Puerto Boyacá, Medellín and Bogotá. It has not yet been possible to make an arrest, but efforts are being continued.

Death of Tobías Torres Jaramillo:

&htab;The case was referred to the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo in February 1987 by the Higher Court of Medellín.

Death of Jairo Chamorro Romero:

&htab;The Chief of Police of Sucre stated in report number 824/DESUC.UINDI 744, that this person suffered gunshot wounds on 13 January 1987 at 11 p.m. in the district of Chapinero under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Corozal, by persons riding a motorcycle. He was taken to the Nuestra Señora de las Mercedes Hospital in that town, where he died. The case was referred to the Third Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Corozal. The proceedings are now at the preliminary investigation stage, and it has not yet been possible to identify the guilty parties.

Death of Ricardo Emilio Correa:

&htab;The case was referred to the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo.

Death of Pedro Hernández Torres:

&htab;The Chief of the Police Department of Córdaba reported that this person was killed by unidentified persons on the night of 31 October 1986, in the rural area of the Ciénaga de Oro municipality. His body was found at about 4 p.m. at a place known as "Charco de Ají". The body was removed by the Central Police Inspector of this area and the autopsy was carried out by Dr. Hugo Rufo Mendoza, who noted that the skin had peeled as a result of serious burns inflicted by a firearm.

&htab;The investigation opened by the Municipal Court of Ciénaga de Oro was conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Montéria; the Sectional Directorate of Criminal Investigations subsequently ordered the Eighth Court to take certain steps, including the exhumation of the body. The 16th Court ordered Henry Daza and Julián Cumplido Orozco to appear for questioning; an arrest warrant was issued against them but was later cancelled by the Higher Court. The investigation is currently being conducted by the Fourth Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Cereté. It must be stressed that Pedro Hernández cannot have been "detained, tortured and murdered" by the police in January 1987, as the complainants state, since, quite apart from the fact that there is no mention of his arrest in the register of the police station of Ciénaga de Oro, it was on 31 October 1986 that he was killed by unidentified persons.

Death of Freddy Tapias:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Death of Ranulfo Enrique Serrano Mora:

&htab;The investigation was opened by the 47th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó and is currently being conducted by the 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court.

Death of Adalberto Manuel González:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the technical department of the judicial police of Antioquia.

Death of Oscar Extremor Paz:

&htab;Proceedings were instituted against an unidentified person following the death of the above-mentioned person on 17 February 1987. The investigation was conducted by the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó, but here again, it yielded no results due to lack of co-operation by witnesses. The 11th Higher Court of Medellín is now conducting the proceedings.

Death of Ovidio Cano Peñate:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Death of Obdulio Palacio Lemus:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 68th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Chigorodó. Death of José Hernán Usuga:

&htab;The investigation was opened by the 65th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo and is currently being conducted by the police inspectorate of Currulao.

Death of Jesús Antonio Molina:

&htab;The 21st Criminal Examining Magistrate of Puerto Berrío (Antioquia) stated by telegram that proceedings No. 2532, instituted against an unidentified person in connection with the death of Mr. Molina had been transferred (for assignment) to the Higher Magistrate of Medellín on 9 April 1987. The 64th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Puerto Nara stated that proceedings No. 220, instituted against an unidentified person in connection with the death of Mr. Molina, had been referred to the Departmental Police Inspectorate of La Sierra on 20 May this year, in accordance with section 2 of Decree No. 1,200 of 1987.

Deaths of Gerardo Díaz Chaverra, Pascual Acosta Pérez and Nemesio Córdoba Salas:

&htab;The 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo is also conducting the investigation into these deaths.

Death of Fidel Antonio Pino Quiroz:

&htab;The investigation was opened by the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo which referred it, in accordance with the rules of penal procedure, to the Police Inspectorate of Currulao, which is currently conducting the case.

Death of Fabio Jesús Londoño García:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo.

Death of Esteban Agualimpia Pérez:

&htab;The investigation was referred to the Police Inspectorate of Apartadó by the 47th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of the same town.

Death of Samuel Valdés Ríos:

&htab;The Chief of the Police Department of Magdalena passed on the information supplied by the Third District (Fundación). The Chief of this district stated that Mr. Valdés had been shot to death on 27 March 1987 in the grounds of the "La Pola" hacienda in the jurisdictionof Chivolo. According to the account of events given by various local peasants in the area, the murder was allegedly committed by José María Cantillo Montenegro, the leader of a gang of thugs opposed to the distribution of land by the Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform, INCORA, with which the victim was co-operating as a peasant leader. Proceedings have been instituted by a court in Fundación against the perpetrator of the crime for theft of livestock. The investigation into the death of Mr. Valdés is being conducted by the only municipal criminal court of Chivolo (Magdalena), from which the Ministry has requested information. The Government later reported that the municipal Magistrate of first instance of Chivolo (Magdalena) had stated in a telegram that his office had instituted proceedings against José María Cantillo Montenegro, the presumed perpetrator of the murder. On 26 June 1987 the case was referred to the Higher Court of Santa Marta.

Death of Eladio Rentería:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo.

Death of Darío Garrido Ruiz:

&htab;This death is being investigated by the 95th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Urrao.

Death of Francisco Antonio Palacio:

&htab;The investigation was opened by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó, which referred it to the Police Inspectorate of the same town.

Death of Adán González:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted out by the 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court.

Death of Alberto Cogüello:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Death of Hernando de Jesús Sanguino Jácome:

&htab;The 20th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Cúcuta stated in report No. 258 that his office had taken the necessary preliminary steps, including a police check of the scene of events in order to ascertain who lived there. The evidence of the persons living there was heard, but none of them provided any indications which could shed light on the deplorable incident, and the investigation was therefore referred to the technical department of the judicial police in accordance with section 347 of the Code of Penal Procedure.

Death of Carlos López Bedoya:

&htab;The 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Medellín stated in report No. 207 that his Office was in the process of taking the necessary preliminary steps, but that, despite inquiries undertaken in collaboration with the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), it had unfortunately not yet been possible to ascertain the causes of his death or to identify the culprits.

Deaths of Jesús Hernando Restrepo, Pedro Luis Valencia and Leonardo Betancur:

&htab;The investigation into the deaths of Mr. Restrepo and Mr. Valenciawas referred to the 49th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Medellín and that into the death of Mr. Betancur to the First Criminal Examining Magistrate of the same town who stated in report No. 290 that the case had been referred to the technical department of the judicial police.

Death of Reinaldo Alzate Cifuentes:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 22nd Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Neiva.

Death of Alejandro José Gómez Ricardo:

&htab;The investigation, which was opened by the 65th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo, was referred to the police inspectorate of Currulao.

Death of Luis Felipe Vélez Herrera:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 22nd Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court of Medellín.

Death of Héctor Abad Gómez:

&htab;The First Criminal Examining Magistrate of Medellín stated that the investigation into this death had been opened by his Office and that it had been referred to the technical department of the judicial police of the same town in accordance with section 347 of the Code of Penal Procedure.

Death of Luis Ovidio Estrada Betancourt:

&htab;This person was shot to death on 30 August 1987 at 7.45 p.m. in his home in the town of Toro. Following a rapid and successful investigation which was given nation-wide coverage, the police identified the perpetrators of the crime as Hoovert Londoño Rivera, aged 16 years, and César Augusto Rivera Ramírez, aged 19 years. According to the latter's confession, it was he who had planned the murder of Estrada, a teacher, because he had failed his subject at school, and had convinced his cousin Londoño, who fired the weapon. His confession was made in the presence of the police, according to thestatutory procedure, and was ratified before the Criminal Examining Magistrate and spontaneously confirmed by the perpetrator of the crime to various journalists, who immediately gave them nation-wide coverage.The case was initially brought before the Fourth Criminal Examining Magistrate of Zarzal and then referred on 15 February of the current year to the Fourth Higher Court of Cartago. Thus, it concerns common law offences, and not violations of freedom of association. The investigation is now being conducted by the First Higher Magistrate of Cartago, who stated that the case will soon be tried by jury at a public hearing and that the accused Hoover Londoño Rivera and César Augusto Rivera Ramírez have been indicted.

Death of Marciano Berrío:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Municipal Court of Apartadó.

Death of Fulton Garcés Moreno:

&htab;The Police Inspectorate of Apartadó has been investigating the case since 12 February of the current year.

Death of José Fidel Manjarrés Garcia:

&htab;The events occurred in the establishment called "La Gran Esquina" on 8 September 1987. The 23rd Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of San José del Guaviare opened a preliminary investigation and the case was then referred on 26 January 1988 to the Sectional Directorate of criminal investigations of Villavicencio (Meta) in order for the latter to refer the case to the technical department of the judicial police, the culprit not having been identified. Death of William Alfonso Cadena Sarmiento:

&htab;The 81st Criminal Examining Magistrate of Bogotá stated that his Office was conducting investigation No. 337 in order to indentify this person's murderers. The preliminary investigation was carried out by the 60th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court, and the case was then referred to the technical department of the judicial police, but the proceedings continuing in the 81st Court have not yet resulted in the identification of the culprits.

Death of Dora Torres:

&htab;The head of the preliminary investigations branch of the technical department of the judicial police of Santander reported that the murder of this teacher was committed at the place known as "La Tachuela" in the locality of San José de Arévalo, in the municipality of Ríonegro, on 1 September 1987. Upon expiry of the 60-day period allowed for the preliminary investigation, the 19th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Bucaramanga referred the case to the above-mentioned police department in accordance with section 347 of the Code of Penal Procedure, as it had not been possible to indentify the murderers or their accomplices. This department had resumed the preliminary investigation and issued order No. 008, dated 2 March 1988, requiring the chief of the SIJIN F2 judicial police of that town to identify the guilty parties. On 4 May the case was referred back to the preliminary investigations branch, since the presence of subversive groups in the area made it advisable to suspend the investigation temporarily for security reasons. However, on 25 June that branch again requested the chief of the judicial police to ascertain, through the chief of police of Ríonegro "... what groups of common-law criminals or subversive elements operate in this area, and, if possible, their modus operandi in cases of homicide", since it was presumed that guerrilla fighters had been involved in the murder of Mrs. Dora Torres. Despite the difficult situation prevailing in this area due to guerrilla warfare, the technical department of the judicial police will continue their investigations in order to identify the perpetrators of the murder.

Death of Euclides María Montes Negrete:

&htab;The chief of the judicial police group of the section of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS) in Córdoba stated that on 24 September 1987, at 10 p.m., in the "La fuente" ice-cream parlour in the urban area of the municipality of Tierralta, Mr. Montes Negrete was shot dead by an unidentified person who fired at him several times.The sectional directorate ordered several agents to investigate, but the preliminary steps to obtain evidence or eye-witness accounts which could shed light on the event failed to yield any results, as the persons who were in the ice-cream parlour at the time refused to make any statements about the person who fired the shots for fear of reprisals by subversive groups who frequent the area. The permanent police inspector of Tierralta removed the body and referred the case to the municipal magistrate of that town in order for the latter to conduct the investigation, notified the notary to draw up the death certificate and requested the doctors on duty at the San José hospital to carry out an autopsy. Those who were present in the ice-cream parlour where the victim was having a drink, including two sisters of the victim, Cándida Rosa Montes de Montero and Iluminada Enriqueta Montes Negrete, were unanimous in stating that they had no clue as to who had murdered the victim, and their replies contained nothing which could lead to the identification of the guilty parties. The investigation is now being conducted by the 11th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Montería.

Death of José Uriel Ramírez Millán:

&htab;This person was shot dead on 25 September 1987, at 8.30 p.m., on the road from Zarzal to La Victoria. The motive of the murder was apparently to steal the vehicle in which he was travelling, a Renault 9, with the licence plate No. NT 0520. Mr. Ramírez Millán was killed by d'Humberto Sepúlveda Cuartas and Fernando Giraldo Marín, who threw themselves at his car in order to steal it; this resulted in Giraldo Marín's death. Inquiries showed that Mr. Ramírez Millán had no personal problems, neither had he been threatened for political or trade union reasons, and it is not known whether he was affiliated to any trade union; the authorities therefore consider that he died while resisting an attempt to steal his car. The investigation is being conducted in the Fourth Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Zarzal.

Death of Domitila Guanay de Sigua:

&htab;The investigation into the death of this teacher and 15 peasants was conducted by the 15th and 17th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Courts of Santa Rosa de Viterbo (Boyacá). Elías Niño Blanco, Cayetano Rodríguez Tumay and Belisario Jiménez Tumay were arrested and confessed to these murders. The guilty parties also admitted to their involvement in the attack on the police station of Nunchía (Casanare) on 25 August 1987 with members of the 28th Front of the subversive group called Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), to which they belong. They also stated that the crimes against Mrs. Guanay de Sigua and the peasants were committed with a view to intimidating the population and enlisting their support, but also because the victims were co-operating with the army and the police. The perpetrators of the crime are being held in the prison of Sogamoso. The prison director reported that the accused Elías Blanco Niño, Cayetano Rodríguez Tumay and Belisario Jiménez Tumay had been arrested and had been in detention since 3 March this year and that they had been imprisoned in the penitentiary centre on 26 March at the order of the 15th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court of Santa Rosa de Viterbo (Boyacá) on charges of premeditated murder, conspiracy and illegal entry. Death of Juan Paulino López Mena:

&htab;The investigation was referred to the Police Inspectorate of Apartadó by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of the same town.

Death of Alberto Angulo Gómez:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Police Inspectorate of Apartadó.

Death of José Aldemar González Galindo:

&htab;The investigation was referred to the Police Inspectorate of Apartadó by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court.

Death of Pablo Emilio Córdoba Madrigal:

&htab;Preliminary investigation No. 19 was transferred on 30 May 1988 by the 64th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Puerto Nare to the departmental Police Inspectorate of La Sierra.

Death of Alfonso Miguel Lozano Pérez:

&htab;The case was referred to the 64th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Puerto Nare by the Fifth Higher Court of Medellín; the former opened the investigation on 13 October 1987. On 6 November of the same year, it referred the case to the Departmental Police Inspectorate of La Sierra.

Death of José Aristides Girón:

&htab;The 27th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Turbo opened the investigation, which was later referred to the "Llanogrande" Police Inspectorate of that locality, which is now conducting the investigation. The Departmental Police Inspector of Ríogrande stated that his office is conducting an investigation against an unidentified person into this death, but in connection with a murder committed on 13 May 1987 and not in October, as the complainants affirm. The inspector also specifies that the investigation file contains three statements, but that none of them contains sufficient elements to bring charges against anyone. Death of Rodrigo Guzmán Martínez:

&htab;The investigation into this death is being conducted by the 28th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court of Medellín. New inquiries are under way with a view to identifying the guilty parties.

Death of Carlos Alfredo Vanegas Ossa:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 56th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Bello. It has not yet been possible to ascertain the motives of the crime or to identify the guilty parties.

Deaths of Gustavo de Jesús Callejas Vásquez and Héctor Alonso Loaiza Londoño:

&htab;The 64th Magistrate stated that the preliminary investigation had been opened by his Office on 5 December 1987 and that the case had been referred to the Departmental Police Inspectorate of La Sierra on 24 February 1988.

Death of Argemiro Colorado Marulanda:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 69th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of La Ceja.

Death of Angel Manuel Gutiérrez Rodríguez:

&htab;Mr. Angel Manuel Gutiérrez Rodríguez, President of the Automobile Industry Trade Union (ASINTRAUTO) and an employee of SOFASA RENAULT, died on 25 December 1987 in a clinic of the city of Bogotá as a result of injuries sustained while falling down the stairs of the establishment "Balcón de los Sibaritas y Billares Los Libertadores" in the town of Duitama (Boyacá). The police was informed of the cause of death by citizens who had witnessed the fall and who had called on the police to assist the victim. It was therefore a case of accidental death. The investigation was conducted by the 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Duitama.

&htab;The 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Duitama (Boyacá) stated that, on the basis of the preliminary investigation carried out by his Office, it was decided to open an investigation against Faustino Rodríguez Hurtado, as charges had been brought against him, and to question him on Friday 3 June at 10 a.m. Death of Ovidio Assia:

&htab;The chief of the police department of Sucre stated in report No. 1121/SUCOM that the investigation was being conducted by the Third Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Corozal.

&htab;The Ministry has requested detailed information from the latter in order to communicate it to the ILO as it has done on the other facts relating to this case.

Death of Manuel Gustavo Chacón Sarmiento:

&htab;The Sixth Criminal Examining Magistrate of Bucaramanga (Santander)stated in a telegram that his Office had instituted proceedings against Pablo Francisco Pérez Cabrera, suspected of having murdered Mr. Chacón.

&htab;Following the preliminary investigation, the court indicted the accused, who will be brought to trial.

Death of Argemiro Correa:

&htab;The police inspector of Apartadó stated in a telegram that the investigation was being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of the same town.

Death of Augusto Guerrero Márquez:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court of Bucaramanga.

Death of Héctor Julio Mejía:

&htab;The 64th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Puerto Nare (Antioquia) stated that his Office had opened a preliminary investigation, No. 043, against an unidentified person, but that on 23 February 1988 the case had been referred to the 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court at the order of the Sectional Directorate of Criminal Investigations of Medellín.

Deaths of Darío Gómez and Arturo Salazar:

&htab;The preliminary investigation, No. 037, was opened by the 64th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Puerto Nare on 20 January 1988. On 17 May the case was referred to the Departmental Police Inspectorate of La Sierra in accordance with section 347 of the Code of Penal Procedure. Aníbal Díaz:

&htab;The chief of the special police station of San José del Guariare stated that there was no mention of Mr. Díaz's death in any of the records of proceedings or records of removals of bodies established by the courts of this city. Neither was the death recorded in census or other documents kept by the police station. Therefore the complainant organisation must supply more detailed information.

Death of Hubert Aníbal Cabezas Cortés:

&htab;The chief of the special police station stated that the incident occurred on the road to the Retorno district, in the centre of the town of San José del Guaviare on 1 February 1988. On 3 February a criminal investigation was opened against Argenis Valencia Rodríguez and on 8 February, Hernán Echeverri was also charged. Both of them are currently being held in the municipal prison.

Death of Bernardo Arbeláez Arroyave:

&htab;The crime was committed on the avenue leading from the town of San José de Guaviare to the Retorno district on 2 February this year. The 22nd Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court opened an investigation,No. 283, now in the preliminary stage. The accused, Pedro Antonio Solano, is being held in the municipal prison and has been charged with another homicide.

Death of Alberto Martínez Faura:

&htab;The Ministry has requested information on this death from the special department of the judicial police of Arauca.

&htab;The head of the preliminary investigations branch of this body stated that, according to a record dated 1 February 1988, the body of Mr. Martínez, shot to death, was removed on that day by the municipal Police Inspectorate of Tame. On 2 February, the Seventh Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of the same municipality opened a preliminary investigation with a view to identifying the murderers or their accomplices, in accordance with section 346 of the Code of Penal Procedure.

Héctor Julio Mejía:

&htab;This person was injured in 1988. The investigation is being conducted by the 13th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Puerto Nare.

&htab;The events occurred on 4 March this year on the "Honduras" and "La Negra" farms, where the following workers, affiliated to SINTAGRO, lost their lives: Omar Ochoa, Iván Darío Molina, Guillermo León Valencia, José Blanco, Julia Carrillo, Manuel Cogollo Espitia, Alirio Rojas, Natanael Rojas, José Pineda, Guido González Martínez, Bienvenido González Martínez, Pedro González Martínez, Enrique Guisado Martínez, Rito Martínez Reyes, Gilberto Meneses, Joaquín Mendoza, José Mena Sánchez, Santiago Ortiz, Rodrigo Guzmán, Manuel Durango and Néstor Marino Galvis.

&htab;Judging from the evidence obtained by the special department of the judicial police, this massacre and that which occurred at the locality of Coquitos on 11 April 1988 appear to have been ordered by the same persons, that is, a major property owner of the Urabá area and three banana plantation workers. One of the suspects has been arrested.

Death of Valencia Vasco Camargo:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Sixth Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court (Bucaramanga).

Death of José Antonio Bohórquez Jaimes:

&htab;The 19th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Bucaramanga stated in a telegram that the case was at the stage of preliminary investigation, in accordance with section 341(2) and section 346 of the Code of Penal Procedure, but when the statutory period was drawing to a close, it had been suspended since the court was sitting outside its seat.

Death of peasants at the locality known as "La Mejor Esquina":

&htab;The sustained efforts of the investigating authorities have led to the detention of nine of the suspected perpetrators of the massacre at La Mejor Esquina, in which the following lost their lives: Juan Sáenz Martínez, Tomás Berrío Wilches, Donaldo Benítez, Dionisio Benítez Benítez, Luis Sierra, Freddy Martínez, Tomás Rivero Aguirre, José Guevara, Pedro Pablo Márquez Bentítez, Carlos Márquez Benítez, Oscar Sierra Mercado, Domingo Salas, Carmen Barragán, Jaime Paternina, Iván Acevedo, Ramón Nisperuza, Rogelio Mejía Medrano, Matencio Sáenz, Silverio Sáenz, Silvio Pérez Pérez, Silvio Meléndez, Juan Ruiz, Cleto Martínez and Marcos Martínez. According to the director of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), this heinous crime was masterminded by a suspected drug trafficker. The investigation is being conducted by the Judge of the Fifth Law Court. The Government states that these murders were committed by a gang of thugs who never had anything to do with the armed forces. The attitude of the trade union organisations to the work being done by the national armed forces in the struggle against subversion is incomprehensible.

&htab;Death of José Francisco Polo Villalobos, Humberto Martínez Gualdrón and José Arley Bedoya Ibarra. Injuries sustained by Isabel Vargas de Cordero, Arcesio Rincón Jiménez, Libardo Vargas López, María Esther Pinzón, Héctor Rincón, David Darío Gómez Jácome and Antonio José Hoyos Hernández at a party organised by the workers' union of INDUPALMA in the municipality of San Alberto (Cesar):

&htab;A preliminary investigation was opened on 11 April 1988 by the Municipal Court of San Alberto (Cesar), where the incidents occurred. On 12 April, the case was referred to the Second Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Valledupar in accordance with resolution No. 165 of the Sectional Directorate of Criminal Investigations. It took steps to gather evidence, including visits to the head office of ASINTRAINDUPALMA and the homes of three workers employed by the INDUPALMA enterprise, and requested the victims to co-operate by makingstatements in court. The workers then stated publicly that they would not appear in court until the Government sent representatives to hold talks with them. On 14 April, the Ninth Law Court of Bogotá came to San Alberto and took over the investigation on the decision of the National Directorate of Criminal Investigations. On the basis of the investigations conducted by the Municipal Court and by the Second Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court, the Office of the Law Court decided to institute proceedings and open a criminal investigation. The renewed investigation resulted in the identification of suspects, the brothers Segundo Cirilo and Jesús Antonio Ayala Amado, against whom an arrest warrant was issued. The police succeeded in apprehending Segundo Cirilo Ayala Amado; he was held for questioning and the court ordered preventive detention as a security measure. The investigation was conducted as from 3 May 1988. Until the investigation was closed, further inquiries were made with a view to ascertaining the extent of guilt of the accused, in view of the fact that the preventive detention of Segundo Cirilo Ayala Amado had been ordered on the basis of statements which constituted evidence against him. The Second Court studied the case file after the investigation had been closed and concluded that it was necessary to reopen the case in order to improve the indictment, as Jesús Antonio Ayala Amado had been declared absent a situation which was favourable for him, as it was considered that the evidence at hand did not warrant security measures. The reopening of the investigation was welcomed by the specially appointed official of the Ministry, who will request further information from the Second Criminal Examining Magistrate in order to communicate it to the ILO.

Deaths which occurred at the locality of Coquitos:

&htab;On 11 April last, the following peasants regrettably lost their lives at the locality of Coquitos, in the municipality of Turbo: José Durango Zapata, Manuel González Turizo, Leonardo Palacio Romaza, Calixto Antonio González Turizo, Pablo Emilio Mazo Murillo, Orlando Ballesteros Martínez, Lucas Hernández Madarriaga, Manuel Martínez, Herminio Ballesteros, Never López, Edilberto Avila, Calixto Herrera, Bernardo Segura, Gilberto Quintero, Tirso Noe Garavito, Mario Anaya, Domingo Delgado, Francisco Yáñez, Heisen Torres and Milcíades Hurtado.The evidence gathered by the special department of the judicial police indicates that this massacre and that which occurred in the "Honduras" and "La Negra" farms on 4 March 1988 were ordered by the same persons, that is, a major property owner of the Urabá area and three banana plantation workers. One of the culprits has been arrested.

Death of Augusto Muñoz Castrillón:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Cartago. His Office has opened proceedings to identify the guilty parties; they are still at the preliminary investigation stage.

Death of Matías Barraza Utria:

&htab;This person was shot to death on 24 April 1988, at 10 p.m. in the town of Barranquilla. In the same incident, a son of the victim, Rafael Enrique Barraza Rodríguez, resisted the attackers and killed Oscar Campo Junco (alias Roberto Valdez). The bodies were removed by the permanent criminal examining magistrate and the case was referred to the 16th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court. Police inquiries indicate that the daughter of the deceased, Elizabeth Barraza Rodríguez, was involved in a relationship with an individual known as "El Cabe", a member of a gang of common law gangsters called "Los Alacranes", the enemy of another gang of bandits termed "Los Piratas", who robbed travellers on the highways of the department. On 13 April 1988, during a hold-up of a bus on the eastbound road from the Santa Rita district to the Puerto Giraldo district, four members of the "Los Piratas" gang died in a confrontation with the police, which aggravated the hostility between this gang and "Los Alacranes", as the former suspected the latter of having informed the authorities of the planned hold-up. Several days before the death of Matías Barraza Utria and Oscar Campo Junco (alias Roberto Valdez), some members of the "Los Piratas" gang had threatened Elizabeth Barraza Rodríquez, who fled to Bogotá, with the result that "Los Piratas" took revenge against her family. The police department of Atlántico provided due protection to Mr. Barraza's widow and sons, who moved to a city in the interior. It is perfectly clear that the death of Mr. Barraza Utria was a common-law crime related to his daughter's involvement with a member of a gang of robbers, so that there is no reason to accuse the Government, since this is not a case of trade union persecution or infringement of human rights.

Death of Ovidio Bermúdez:

&htab;The 20th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Santander de Quilichao (Cauca) stated that her Office had taken the necessary preliminary steps and that on 14 July this year the case had been referred to the Chief of the Judicial Police of Popayán in accordance with section 347 of the Code of Penal Procedure, but that it had not yet been possible to identify the guilty party or parties. Injuries sustained by Ramón Restrepo:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 38th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Medellín.

&htab;The Ministry has requested the relevant information from the judicial bodies referred to.

Death of Oscar Restrepo Cano:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 11th Criminal Examining Magistrate of Medellín.

Death of Guillermo de Jesús Osorio Gallo:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 33rd Criminal Examining Magistrate of Medellín.

Death of Francisco Triviño:

&htab;An investigation has been opened and is currently being conducted by the Police Department of Cauca.

Death of Genaro Serpa, Edison García and Félix Bohórquez:

&htab;The investigation is currently being conducted by the Police Department of Cesar.

Death of Gerardo Jerez Quiroga:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Police Department of Santander.

Death of Melva Amariles Hernández:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Metropolitan Police of Medellín.

&htab;&htab;(b) &htab;Trade unionists alleged &htab;&htab; &htab;to have disappeared

&htab;Presumed disappearance of Jaime Casas Rojas:

&htab;Although it was initially established that the investigation was being conducted by the Fourth Criminal Examining Magistrate of Pamplona, the latter stated that this was not the case. The Sectional Director of Criminal Investigations of the north of Santander stated in a telegram that his Office had made a number of inquiries of the Municipal Court of Chitagá and the Fourth Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Pamplona, as well as the Chief of the SIJIN in Cúcuta, in order to ascertain where the proceedings were being conducted or whether an investigation had been conducted into the presumed disappearance of Mr. Casa without yielding results. Given the fact that any illegal act, whether death, assault and battery, kidnapping, etc., always involves the intervention of the police and/or the judiciary, and that there is no record of any investigation into the incident referred to in the complaint, the Government deems it indispensable that the complainant organisation provide the ILO with a substantiation of the disappearance of Mr. Casas and state when, how and where it occurred.

Disappearance of Marlene Medina Gómez:

&htab;The Municipal Judge of Sabana de Torres (Santander) stated in report No. 302 that his Office had instituted criminal proceedings, No. 1822, against unidentified persons on a charge of kidnapping. The incident, which occurred on 7 May 1987, was reported by José Heliodoro Medina Heredia. The proceedings were instituted on 20 May and the case was referred on 3 July last year to the Criminal Court of the Circuit of Barrancabermeja for assignment.

Disappearance of Luis Alberto Builes and Alvaro Usuga:

&htab;The investigation was opened by the Municipal Court of Mutatá which then referred it on 27 July 1986 to the 31st Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Apartadó.

Disappearance of Marina Elvia Díaz:

&htab;The case was investigated by the Police Inspectorate of Itagüí and the criminal examining courts of that municipality and of Medellín.

Disappearance of Marcial Alonso González:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Puerto Boyacá.

Disappearance of Christian Roa:

&htab;The chief of the Police Department of Santander stated that a number of inquiries had been undertaken in search of this missing person. His sister and mother made statements in the office of the judicial and investigation police of Bucaramanga, but this did not advance the inquiries. Another statement was made by Mr. Alfonso Conde Prada, who said that he had seen Christian Roa for the last time on 27 June 1988 at 6.30 p.m. at No. 17 46, 37th Street, in that town. Although the chief of the judicial police visited the premises himself, he was not able to find any witnesses. An employee of the restaurant called "Señora Bucaramanga" also stated that on the same day, at 10 p.m., the missing person ate dinner and left the restaurant alone. The official stated that the investigation was being conducted by the First Specialised Judge of Bucaramanga, from whom the Ministry has requested information.

&htab;3. Other allegations

&htab;The Government communicated the following information:

Injuries sustained by Jesús Aníbal Parra Castrillón:

&htab;The investigation is being conducted by the 64th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of Puerto Nare.

Injuries sustained by Asdrúbal Jiménez Vacca:

&htab;In accordance with the statement of the chief of police, this investigation is being conducted by the 28th Criminal Examining Magistrate's Circuit Court.

Presumed detention of Francisco Cantillo:

&htab;The chief of the Police Department of Antioquia stated in report No. 187/COMAN DEANT, that Mr. Cantillo had been arrested by the national armed forces in the municipality of El Bagre and taken to the High Command of the 11th Brigade, whose headquarters are in Puerto Berrío, and subsequently released.

&htab;It appears to be necessary to draw the attention of the Committee on Freedom of Association to the fact that the state of emergency which had to be declared throughout the country in accordance with article 121 of the national Constitution in view of the serious disruption of the public order in the country empowers the military authorities to detain, as a preventive measure, persons whom there is reason to suspect of having contributed by their actions to the disturbances.

&htab;Where the suspicion is found to be groundless, the detainee must be immediately released.

&htab;Mr. Cantillo was detained by the army in accordance with the powers referred to above and rapidly released once his innocence was proved. &htab;As the person concerned is now free, the Government considers that he should be excluded from the case.

Presumed detention and/or death of Leonardo Chacón and Blanca Vera:

&htab;The chief of the Police Department of Santander stated in report No. 04545 DESAN-578 that there was no record of the death and/or disappearance of these persons, that no inquiries had been made by the offices of the SIJIN and that there had been no mention of them in the registers of the criminal records chamber which lists missing or dead persons.

&htab;It therefore appears necessary that the complainant organisations fully substantiate this allegation and supply precise information in support thereof.

Terrorist attack on the headquarters of SINTAGRO:

&htab;The Second Specialised Judge of Medellín stated that his Office had investigated the attack on the headquarters of the trade union in Turbo on the night of 18 to 19 February 1987. The judge visited that town and heard statements, but was not able to impute the act to any person or organisation. The chief of the Police Department of Meta Llanos Orientales stated that the case had been referred to the Third Criminal Examining Magistrate's Court of San José del Guaviare, from which the Ministry has requested information.

Threats made against trade union leaders and trade unionists:

&htab;The Government communicated the following information to the mission:

&htab;The Government deeply deplores the fact that death threats have been made against workers in the teaching profession and that some of them have lost their lives. These threats are part of the wave of violence gripping the country and against which measures have been taken in order to strike at the root of the disorders, for example by strengthening the presence of the authorities in areas of unrest. The Ministry will conduct a thorough investigation of the veracity of the threats made and determine whether they have been reported to the authorities and, if so, what steps have been taken to protect the victims. Teachers are a group which is essential to the present and future of the nation and the State will guarantee their rights in full.

&htab;The authorities emphatically drew the attention of the mission to the need for the complainant organisations to supply more detailed information on the alleged threats and pointed out that specific complaints could be lodged with the competent authorities. They also stated that in some cases, official protection had been provided to threatened leaders, at the latter's request.

&htab;As regards the legislative provisions referred to in the complaints and their application in practice, several trade union confederations told the mission that trade unions were often denied legal personality or the right to amend their by-laws and that there were excessive delays in processing applications. These confederationsfelt that this was not a deliberate policy on the part of the Ministry of Labour but that officials of the Ministry allowed themselves to be corrupted by some employers, and that the same practices occurred at the regional level. One trade union confederation stated that Legislative Decree No. 672/56 (right of trade unions to hold meetings) was still in force.

&htab;The Government handed a communication to the mission in which it stated the following:

&htab;The State of Colombia has committed itself before the ILO to bringing its legislation into line with the International Labour Conventions which it has ratified ... The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations set up by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office in order to examine the information and reports supplied by member States recommended that the Colombian Government indicate in its next report what measures it has adopted to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention ... For this purpose, the Ministry of Labour has set up a commission composed of employers, government representatives and workers which has undertaken a concerted study of possible amendments to the Labour Code.

&htab;As regards the legislation and practice concerning the granting of legal personality to trade union organisations, the Government states that in 1986, legal personality was granted in 103 cases and refused in 9; in 1987, it was granted in 101 cases and refused in 34, and in 1988 (up to the month of August) granted in 69 cases and refused in 25.

&htab;As regards amendments of by-laws, in 1986, 154 were approved and 5 refused; in 1987, 128 were approved and 8 refused, and in 1988 (up to the month of August) 86 were approved and 8 refused.

&htab;It is the policy of the Ministry of Labour to foster and encourage the exercise of the constitutional right of association. When legal personality has to be refused, the decision taken is based on legal considerations; thus, under section 356 of the Labour Code, trade unions are defined and classified as first-level trade unions, industry trade unions, occupational ( de gremio ) trade unions and mixed trade unions.

&htab;The workers have stepped up their trade union activity and set up new trade union organisations disregarding the above-mentioned classification, which is considered to be a substantial legal requirement which must be observed if trade unions are to become occupational organisations.

&htab;The Government further illustrates its argument by giving the legal grounds for refusing to grant legal personality to a number of organisations in 1986, 1987 and 1988. It appears from this information that, in some cases, refusal to grant legal personality was based on the following grounds: an attempt was being made to set up a first-level union where one already existed, or to form a mixed trade union when there was already an occupational trade union; or the workers wishing to set up an occupational trade union were not engaged in the same occupation; or there were formal defects, such as failure to include the handwritten signature of all of the founding members; or the name of the organisation did not describe a certain economic activity.

&htab;As regards the processing of applications for legal personality, the Government states that once the file has reached the secretariat of the Department for the Supervision and Registration of Trade Unions, the head of that Department passes it on to a lawyer who must ensure that all of the required documents have been submitted (in accordance with section 364 of the Labour Code) and thoroughly examine the contents.

&htab;The by-laws must be based on resolution No. 54 of 1952 (official model by-laws) and must not run counter to the Constitution and the law of the land.

&htab;These formalities must be completed within 15 working days (section 365 of the Labour Code) which perhaps sufficed amply in 1950. Nowadays, however, this time-limit is absurd in view of the volume of applications submitted by trade union organisations and the fact that this department is responsible not only for processing applications for legal personality, but also for a great many other applications, for which it has a limited number of staff.

&htab;As regards the processing of applications for legal personality, the Government states further that if the documents contain errors which may be remedied (defects of form), they are returned to the organisation with a note to the effect that they should be sent back, duly corrected, within two months (section 13 of the Code of Administrative Disputes Procedure). This time limit is ignored by those concerned, since the instructions are often complied with only one or two years later. &htab;When the documents meet the requirements, the competent official draws up a draft decision to be signed by the head of the Collective Labour Relations Division. Once the file has been signed, the secretariat of the Division passes it on to the legal office of the Ministry of Labour for examination; if it is found to be in conformitywith labour standards, the office transmits it to the general secretariat, where it is verified again by one of the legal advisers who, after approving it, passes it on to the Secretary-General for his signature and, lastly, to the Minister.

&htab;Occasionally, these examinations reveal irregularities, and in this case the file is sent back to the Department for the Supervision and Registration of Trade Unions for correction.

&htab;As regards the possibility of advisers of a trade union confederation assisting leaders of a first-level trade union during collective bargaining, the authorities of the Ministry of Labour informed the mission that the Government welcomed such assistance to first-level trade unions from confederations and that the Ministry of Labour in fact intervened in specific cases to facilitate such assistance. However, according to the same authorities, this problem only arose at the stage of collective disputes termed "direct settlement" (and not at the mediation stage, for example), since the legislation, which was adopted at a time when there were only first-level trade unions, only provides for the presence of representatives of the enterprise and the trade union concerned. In any case, this issue is being studied by the Tripartite Commission set up to draw up amendments to labour legislation.

&htab;As regards Legislative Decree No. 672/56, which requires that the labour inspectorate and military commander be notified of any trade union meeting in advance, the authorities of the Ministry of Labour stated that this was a Decree adopted under the state of emergency and which was no longer applied once the exceptional measure had been lifted.

&htab;681.&htab;In its letter of 15 December 1987, the ICFTU recalls that on a number of occasions in recent years it has expressed its deep concern at the continuing restrictions on basic trade union rights in Indonesia, including increased interference in trade union activities by the authorities and employers, serious restrictions on collective bargaining and strike action, and in particular, denial of the right to organise in trade unions in the public service, in public undertakings and in enterprises owned fully or partly by the central Government or by regional or local authorities. The ICFTU refers in this connection to the high-level mission which it sent to Indonesia at the beginning of 1984, and to a detailed letter it addressed to the President of the Republic of Indonesia on 5 December 1984. Regrettably, states the ICFTU, the reply (dated 25 June 1985) did not contain any commitment on the part of the Government to lift the restrictions on trade union rights in line with internationally recognised standards on freedom of association. Since then the situation has not improved and it is for this reason that the ICFTU feels obliged to turn to the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association.

&htab;682.&htab;The complainant first observes that on many occasions the ILO Committee of Experts raised questions on Indonesia's application of Convention No. 98 and urged the Government to abandon the legislative restrictions on the right to organise and collective bargaining. For example, in 1979 the Committee of Experts considered that the protection against anti-union discrimination (in Act No. 21 of 1954) is extremely limited and does not satisfy the requirements of Convention No. 98. In 1982 and in subsequent years, with reference to Act No. 14 of 1969 (Basic principles concerning manpower), the Committee of Experts urged the Government to take specific measures to ensure that protection against possible acts of anti-union discrimination, both at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, is established in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. In 1986 and 1987, the Committee of Experts reiterated its observation that the purpose of section 1(3) of Act No. 21 of 1954 "seems to be the protection of the employer against the 'dictatorial' attitude on the part of the trade union (as is stated in the explanatory text attached to the Act) and the exclusion of any system of trade union security rather than the protection of the workers against anti-union discrimination within the meaning of Article 1 of Convention No. 98".

&htab;683.&htab;The complainant also lists other issues dealt with by the Committee of Experts, for example: Regulation No. 49 of 1954 and Ministerial Regulation PER-01/MEN/1975. The complainant states that these regulations with regard to the registration of trade unions and collective bargaining (limited to federations covering at least 20 provinces and comprising 15 trade unions) are in conflict with obligations placed on the Government under the provisions of Article 4 of Convention No. 98, namely to encourage and promote collective bargaining.

&htab;684.&htab;According to the ICFTU, in addition to these restrictions there are serious limitations on the right to strike. In a great many sectors and enterprises, recourse to strike action is simply forbidden.Presidential Decision No. 7 of 1963 exempts scheduled industries, projects and government departments from the right to strike and Presidential Decision No. 123 of 1963 lists in this respect some 27 state and private corporations, 14 government departments and banks, and 20 development projects.

&htab;685.&htab;It states that the extensiveness of the list of sectors and enterprises in which strike action is forbidden goes far beyond what can be considered as essential services in the strict sense of the term. According to the ICFTU, they include not only government departments (such as air and sea communications, railways, harbours, transport, civil aviation service, radio, post and telegraph), but also state corporations (such as electricity, oil and gas supplies, general mining, tin mining, coal, chemical industries, pharmaceuticals,electrical machinery, sugar, rubber and tobacco estates), development projects, certain private enterprises and banks. Development projects include the Jatiluhur Water and Hydro-electricity Project, Kalimantan Highway, Sriwijaya Fertilizer Plant in Palembang, specified tourist hotels, Sarinah Department Store, Ancol pleasure parc in Jakarta and Tuban airport in Bali. The banks include Bank Indonesia, Development Bank of Indonesia and the Indonesia State Bank. Foreign private enterprises named are Shell, Caltex, Goodyear Tyre and Dunlop Rubber. Moreover, a system of compulsory arbitration is in force for other economic sectors and private enterprises on the basis of Law No. 22 of 1957, which makes recourse to strike action virtually impossible.

&htab;686.&htab;The complainant states that the most serious violation of trade union rights concerns the denial of the right to organise in trade unions in the public service (including the sectors of education and health care), in public undertakings and in enterprises in which the State participates.

&htab;687.&htab;In 1970, explains the ICFTU, all staff of the civil administration in the Department of Internal Affairs were designated members of "Kokarmendragi" (functional group corps of the Internal Affairs Department), under threat of dismissal. This, it alleges, amounted to the Ministry's public servants providing organisational support for the ruling party. In 1971, similar bodies were establishedin most government departments. The prohibition on organising was formalised in Presidential Decree No. 82, 1971, which stipulates that there is to be one single organisation for public servants, known as KORPRI. Yet according to the ICFTU, under the relevant regulations KORPRI does not and cannot perform true trade union functions. KORPRI's central board is chaired by the Minister of Internal Affairs. In the ICFTU's view the compulsory membership of KORPRI by all Indonesian public servants negates the right to organise freely in trade unions and therefore constitutes a very serious violation of the principles of freedom of association. It adds that under Government Regulation No. 6, 1974, all state employees, at both the national and regional level, are public servants, as are persons employed in enterprises owned wholly or partly by the State. KORPRI's rules and statutes, confirmed by Presidential Decree No. 4, 1984, stretch the definition of public servants to include persons working in private companies in which the Government owns a share.

&htab;688.&htab;The complainant points out that enterprises in which the Government or regional authorities own part of the shares - and where workers are consequently barred from the right to freedom of association - are among the largest in Indonesia and include companies operating in the steel industry (e.g. Krakatau Steel), oil and natural gas and their subcontractors (e.g. Caltex), tin-mining (e.g. PT TIMAH),aircraft manufacturing (e.g. PT Nusantara), chemicals and cement industry (e.g. Indocement), transport, import and export, as well as banks and agricultural estates.

&htab;689.&htab;Another group of workers which cannot form a trade union are Indonesia's some 1.5 million teachers in both public and private schools. According to the ICFTU, in practice the teachers' association Persuatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (PGRI) does not have the right to negotiate terms and conditions of employment. Other significant examples of denial of trade union rights in public sectors are the reduction, some years back, of the PKBA - a trade union for railway workers - and the SSPT - a trade union for postal workers - into no more than workers' welfare organisations, without the right to perform normal trade union functions, such as collective bargaining.

&htab;690.&htab;In conclusion, the complainant alleges that more than half of the employed workers in Indonesia are thus deprived of the right to establish or join trade unions of their own choosing and to operate these organisations freely.

&htab;691.&htab;In its letter of 28 May 1988, the Government states that in the free world today the principles and practices of any industrial relations system should be based upon the socio-cultural values, economic constraints and the industrial and commercial structure of the country concerned. In this respect, Indonesia is no different from any other country in that the rights of the individual, notably freedom of speech and similar civil liberties are all practised freely. However, states the Government, Indonesia has developed its own operational philosophy which is based upon globally acceptable principles adapted to meet the national ideals, cultural heritage and overall policies of the Republic and its indigenous population. This policy is to be found in the statutes of the Indonesian industrial relations system, known as the "Pancasila" (PIR).

&htab;692.&htab;The Government explains that, historically, the country first experienced the extremely negative results of industrial relations systems based on various other principles. Its experience was that when these systems were introduced, they resulted in the growth of political ideals which were not in keeping with the common good and they were found to be unable to create the sound consultative relationships which are essential for industrial peace and worker prosperity. Additionally, during this period Indonesia experienced spiralling conditions, unfair competition and increasing industrial disputes at shop-floor level which contributed to excessive and totally unacceptable national unrest in a broad sense.

&htab;693.&htab;According to the Government the PIR fully supports the principles of freedom of association in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and Act No. 14 of 1969. To encourage these ideals - including the matter of collective agreements - the PIR stipulates that a mutual working agreement or collective agreement should be developed as the means of implementation for all rules and regulations.Since the establishment of the PIR, significant progress and improvements in the conditions of work generally have been brought about. Some of these are: (a) the establishment of 4,800 labour unions at shop-floor level; (b) the establishment of 4,500 mutual working agreements in various contexts; (c) the establishment of 2,200 bipartite bodies at shop-floor level; (d) the establishment of 1,500 company regulations.

&htab;694.&htab;The Government points out that the conditions of employment, including wage structures, for public sector workers are regulated by special laws and regulations. It is for this reason that collective agreements in the context of trade union mandates are not applicable. In this respect, it considers that the recently formed association of civil servants, known as KORPRI, is sufficiently effective in itself to provide a channel for negotiation and communication between all categories of civil servants and the Government. In effect, KORPRI has instituted a special office which handles all matters pertaining to disputes as well as other aspects between concerned workers and public sector employers.

&htab;695.&htab;The Government acknowledges that under the 1963 Presidential Decree No. 7, all forms of strike action are expressly forbidden. However, this Decree would be enforced only in respect of what are best described as the "vital sectors", that is to say, those agencies which support the community at large and where the withdrawal of such services could be detrimental to human life. The Government is of the view that it is necessary to urge all parties involved in a dispute to find ways of reaching agreement to the greatest extent possible, before allowing strike action to take place. The latter measure is considered to be the very last resort and one to be avoided if at all possible, hence, states the Government, the reason for these constraints.

&htab;696.&htab;As regards the matter of teachers in the Republic of Indonesia, the Government explains that there are two categories: those employed in the public schools whose terms of service and status are precisely those of civil servants; and those who work for the private schools whose salaries and terms of service are negotiated by the employers concerned. However, it points out that most private schools are managed by foundations which in principle are non-profit making. It stresses that if an individual wishes to join an association, he or she is perfectly at liberty to do so. Within such an organisation all members freely exercise their prerogative in respect of freedom of speech and similar rights. Furthermore, the Government states that the position of a school teacher within Indonesia enjoys a high social standing and status which is well recognised by the community at large and thereby much respected.

&htab;697.&htab;This case involves a general allegation of restrictions on basic trade union rights in Indonesia based on the following specific criticisms of the industrial relations legislation: (1) ban on the right to organise in trade unions for all public servants, teachers and employees of government-owned or controlled corporations; (2) insufficient protection against anti-union discrimination and interference contrary to Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98; (3) restrictions on collective bargaining contrary to Article 4 of Convention No. 98; (4) restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike.

&htab;698.&htab;As regards the first allegation which specifically concerns public servants, the Committee notes the Government's response that since conditions of employment for public sector employees are set by special laws and regulations, collective agreements as a trade union function do not apply; at the same time, the Government points to the existence of the sole civil servants' association, KORPRI, as having a negotiating role between civil servants and their employer, the Government. The Committee takes note of the Government's general assertion that the principles of freedom of association are contained in Indonesian statutes, but regrets that it supplies no detailed information on the civil servants' association, KORPRI, in particular on the alleged influential role of the authorities, evidenced by the fact that the Minister of Internal Affairs is chairman of KORPRI's central board. It requests the Government to supply such information, particularly on the activities which the association undertakes to further and defend the interests of its members.

&htab;699.&htab;Likewise, as regards the alleged denial of the right to organise in unions facing employees of government-owned or controlled corporations, of state enterprises and teachers, the Committee notes the Government's general assertion that freedom of association exists and that, as regards teachers in particular, if an individual wishes to join an association he is perfectly at liberty to do so. However, as for the position of public servants described in the above paragraph, it appears to the Committee that such associations cannot pursue trade union objectives. It accordingly requests the Government to supply further information on any associations which exist for teachers, in particular on the activities of the Persuatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (PGRI) which the complainant alleges is not allowed, in practice, to engage in collective bargaining.

&htab;700.&htab;The Committee would recall generally in connection with this first major allegation that the principles of freedom of association apply to workers without distinction whatsoever, in both the private and public sectors, since both categories should be able to establish organisations of their own choosing to further and defend the interestsof their members. [See Digest of Decisions and Principles , paras. 213 and 214.] In particular, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to the fact that the denial of the right of workers in the public sector to set up trade unions, where this right is enjoyed by workers in the private sector - with the result that their "associations" do not enjoy the same advantages and privileges as "trade unions" - involves discrimination as regards government-employedworkers and their organisations, as compared with private sector workers and their organisations. Such a situation gives rise to the question of compatibility of their distinctions with the principles of freedom of association. [See Digest , para. 216.]

&htab;701.&htab;The Committee notes that Presidential Decree No. 82 of 1971 states that there shall be one sole association for public servants, known as KORPRI, and that a series of other legislative texts extend the meaning of public servants to cover an extremely large segment of the working population. The Committee recognises that, according to the complainant, other organisations exist in public sectors (PKBA for railway workers, SSPT for postal employees, PGRI for teachers) but they do not enjoy the status of trade unions and, in practice, are not permitted to engage in normal trade union functions such as collective bargaining. As regards the important status conferred on KORPRI by the legislation, the Committee would recall that a situation in which an individual is denied any possibility of choice between different organisations by reason of the fact that the legislation permits the existence of only one organisation in the area in which he carries on his occupation, is incompatible with the principles of freedom of association. [See Digest , para. 226.] The Committee would accordinglyrequest the Government to review the legislative situation so as to permit public servants the right to join organisations of their own choosing.

&htab;702.&htab;As regards the allegations concerning violations of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Indonesia, the Committee notes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been calling on the Government for many years to strengthen its legislative provisions against anti-union discrimination so as to accord protection to workers at the time of recruitment and during employment against prejudicial acts carried out by employers or interference by their organisations in the establishment of workers' organisations. The Committee also notes that in the present case the Government refers, by way of general denial of the allegations, to the Pancasila philosophy which underpins the nation's industrial relations system. While noting the PIR's basis of five principles - belief in God, nationalism, humanism, democracy and social justice - the Committee reiterates the Committee of Experts' request that more specific provisions be enacted to ensure full conformity with the requirements of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98.

&htab;703.&htab;As for the alleged restrictions on collective bargaining, contrary to Article 4 of Convention No. 98, the Committee notes that, in addition to referring to the criticisms voiced by the Committee of Experts, the complainant claims that the workers' associations in Indonesia are not, in practice, able to pursue trade union activities such as collective bargaining. Although the Government supplies certain statistics as to the establishment of 4,500 collective labour agreements and 1,500 company regulations (which are obligatory for every undertaking employing 25 or more workers although they are subordinate to collective labour agreements: Ministerial Regulation No. PER-02/MEN/1978), the Committee notes that the sectors involved are not specified. Moreover, the Committee observes with concern that - despite KORPRI's potential involvement in negotiations - the Government clearly states that the conditions of employment for public sector workers are regulated by special laws so that collective agreements are not applicable.

&htab;704.&htab;In these circumstances, the Committee supports the Committee of Experts' comments regarding Article 4's requirements to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary collective bargaining with a view to the regulation of employment conditions by collective agreements. It would also draw the Government's attention to Article 6 of Convention No. 98, according to which only public servants engaged in the administration of the State are not covered by the Convention's provisions.

&htab;705.&htab;The Committee draws this case to the attention of the Committee of Experts as regards Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Convention No. 98.

&htab;706.&htab;Lastly, as regards the alleged restrictions on the right to strike, the Committee notes with concern the very extensive list of non-essential services and industries scheduled in Presidential Decision No. 123 of 1963 in which strike action is banned. The Committee notes the Government's claim that withdrawal of these services could be detrimental to human life and that strikes should only be used as a last resort. In this respect it draws the Government's attention to the principle that strikes may be restricted or even prohibited in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely, where an interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. [See Digest , para. 394.] In the Committee's opinion, the legislation in question should be amended so as to permit industrial action in those services or industries which do not fall within this definition, such as generalmining and metalworks, banking, teaching, agricultural activities and tobacco estates and petrol producing installations. [See Digest , paras. 402-407.] A restriction on strikes in enterprises concerned with water and electricity supply as well as air-traffic control have been considered acceptable by the ILO supervisory bodies in past cases.[See Digest , paras. 410 and 412 and Case No. 1369 (Honduras).] In the present case, the Committee would also request the Government to ensure the deletion of such state-run agencies as tourist hotels, department stores and the Ancol pleasure park which clearly do not provide essential services in the strict sense of the term.

&htab;707.&htab;The Committee notes that the Government makes no specific comment on the ICFTU's allegation that Act No. 22 of 1957 on the settlement of labour disputes sets up a system of compulsory arbitration which makes strikes impossible in practice, apart from stating that strikes should be used only as a last resort. The Committee requests the Government to supply more detailed observations on this allegation. It would recall in the meantime its position on conciliation and arbitration procedures - which are not agreed to by both parties to the industrial disputes - namely, that the substitution, through legislative means, of compulsory arbitration for the right to strike as a means of resolving labour disputes can only be justified in respect of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population). [See Digest , para. 387.]

&htab;708.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) As regards the alleged ban on the right to organise in trade unions applying to public servants and all state employees working in government-owned or controlled enterprises, and teachers, the Committee recalls that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should enjoy the right to establish organisations to further and defend their interests.

(b) It requests the Government to supply more information on the activities of the KORPRI (the civil servants' association), the PGRI (the teachers' association) and any other associations set up for public and para-public servants to protect their interests, e.g. in collective bargaining, grievance procedures. (c) The Committee requests the Government to review the legislative monopoly situation establishing KORPRI as the sole association for civil servants so as to permit civil servants to join organisations of their own choosing.

(d) The Committee reiterates the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations as regards the legislative shortcomings for full observance of Articles 1 and 2 of Convention No. 98 and as regards the limits on collective bargaining inconsistent with Article 4 of the same Convention; it draws these aspects of the present case to the attention of the Committee of Experts.

(e) The Committee requests the Government to take steps for the amendment of Presidential Decision No. 123 of 1963 which contains a too broad list of services deemed to be essential, in which strike action is prohibited, but which go beyond the Committee's definition of essential services.

(f) The Committee requests the Government to supply more detailed observations on the allegation that Act No. 22 of 1957 on the settlement of labour disputes sets up a system of compulsory arbitration which in fact makes strikes impossible.

&htab;709.&htab;The Trade Union of Seamen employed by the CPV presented a complaint alleging the violation of freedom of association by the Government of Peru in a communication of 14 December 1987. Additional information in support of this complaint was sent on 22 January 1988. The Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV sent a communication dated 2 February 1988. The Government sent its observations in communications of 6 May and 23 September 1988.

&htab;710.&htab;Peru 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).

&htab;711.&htab;In its communication of 14 December 1987, the Trade Union of Seamen employed by the CPV alleges that the Peruvian Steamship Company has violated Convention No. 98 by engaging in anti-trade union discrimination and acts of interference in trade union activities, as evidenced by the daily harassment of workers, the curtailment of long-standing rights, the threat to dismiss workers who do not accept conditions laid down by the undertaking and the replacement of unionised workers by non-unionised workers; these measures have compelled many workers to withdraw from the trade union in order to keep their jobs. Likewise, according to the complainant, the Peruvian Steamship Company owes workers 12 months' basic wages and 12 supplementary bonuses, going back to 1981, as well as an 82 per cent basic wage increase as from 1987, under the terms of a collective agreement and a Supreme Decree of the same year. The company grants workers paid annual leave after two full years of service at ludicrously reduced wages. The company's harassment has led many workers to resign and yet, more often than not, it refuses to pay the required compensation for length of service; in the few cases where it has paid this compensation workers have had to wait up to one year, while the legislation provides for a maximum delay of 48 hours. The company has also failed to abide by medical assistance requirements in spite of the fact that it deducts and withholds contributions to the Peruvian Social Security Institute (IPSS) and contributions for family medical insurance; however, the company does not pay the correspondingcontributions to these institutions, thereby making it impossible for these workers and their families to obtain medical care. The complainant's communication adds that by means of wage tactics the company is pitting workers against one another with a view to breaking the trade union: although the company pays ludicrous wages in general, it has created the so-called "positions of trust", which are filled by workers who have left the union. Likewise, the company is in violation of the Labour Stability Act and the Constitution inasmuch as it has over 60 workers on short-term contracts even though they have been working for the company for eight to 20 years without interruption. Lastly, as regards occupational health and safety, the company's boats in collusion with the port authorities at Callas have been granted navigability certificates although they are in a terrible state.

&htab;712.&htab;In its communication of 22 January 1988, the Trade Union of Seamen employed by the CPV sent copies of complaints presented to the Regional Office of Labour and Inspection and the First Provincial Criminal District Attorney of Callao, as well as copies of the collective agreements which the company is alleged to have violated since 1981.

&htab;713.&htab;In its communication of 2 February 1988, the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV also alleges the violation of freedom of association by the Peruvian Steamship Company, mentioning acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, including the harassment of workers, the curtailment of acquired rights, the threats to dismiss workers who do not accept the company's conditions and ill-treatment, which have led many workers to resign from the trade union. The communication of the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV alleges that since 1982 the company has not paid collectively bargainedremuneration or respected clauses concerning wage restructuring, wage parity, work clothes, industrial safety and occupational hygiene, bonuses for work in refrigerated areas, and hours of work established for several years through agreements and legislation. Likewise, it has revoked provisions concerning job advancement and raises, as defined in collective agreements regulated by the National Statistics Institute. The harassment of longshoremen is constant; the company has gone so far as to send notices of dismissal to workers on sick leave, in violation of legal provisions which prohibit the dismissal of workers while they are receiving sickness benefits. The communication adds that under such great pressure several workers have accepted certain incentives offered by the company and resigned; however, they have been unable to obtain compensation payments or have been able to obtain them only in instalments even though the law provides that such benefits must be paid within a delay of 48 hours. The company constantly dodges its responsibilities as regards medical assistance, and many workers therefore have no family medical insurance.

&htab;714.&htab;The communication adds that the company is endeavouring to break the union by dividing workers with wage tactics and by creating the so-called "positions of trust" which are given to workers who have left the trade union and who receive twice the normal wage for the same work. Job positions and career paths which have been negotiated with the company, and which therefore have legal force, are violated by Supreme Decree No. 008-86-TC, in spite of the fact that section 2 of this Decree has, in respect of the Peruvian Steamship Company, suspended all instruments, standards and labour and administrative agreements which do not have the force of law. The complainant alleges that the so-called employment contracts are used to compel workers to give up job security, to give up hours of work established by agreement and by law, to give up any other wage increase by way of collective agreement, and to give up any other type of remuneration or improvement in the conditions of work through collective bargaining, byrequiring them to resign from the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV, and by making such resignations appear as voluntary. The complainant encloses copies of the collective agreements that the enterprise has allegedly violated, and a copy of Supreme Decree No. 008-86-TC.

&htab;715.&htab;Lastly, the complainant's communication states that the company has violated several articles of the Constitution, as well as other legislation and Decrees, and that its protests are disregarded by the employer and by government authorities.

&htab;716.&htab;The Government sent its observations in a communication of 6 May 1988. It states that the Peruvian Steamship Company (CPV) is a government-owned corporation subject to private law, which currently finds itself in a difficult economic situation. For this reason, and in order to help it stay afloat, the State has approved a substantial line of credit and given it the necessary financial assistance. Nevertheless, in the light of the complaints presented by the workers, the General Inspection Office and the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare's First Regional Labour Office were requested to supply information concerning the complaints presented by the Trade Union of Seamen and the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV against the Peruvian Steamship Company, leading to the preparation of reports Nos. 006-88-IN-IP, 004-88-DI-CALL, 004-88-2-DD-CALL, 006-88-IDD-CALL and 001-DN-CALL, in co-ordination with the Regional Labour Office of Callao. The Government attaches these reports to its communication.

&htab;717.&htab;The Government states that the Regional Director of the FirstRegional Labour and Social Welfare Office reviewed the documentation submitted by the above-mentioned trade union organisations and found that certain complaints are vague and unfounded, and that others are being examined by labour authorities in accordance with legal procedures established in Supreme Decrees Nos. 006-71-TR, 006-72-TR and 003-82-TR. Since the protests are still being examined, in accordance with the established procedures, it would be premature to state that the company has infringed any regulations, and even more so with the consent of the authorities, as has been stated by the complainant trade union organisations. Moreover, it should be noted that the Director of the First Regional Labour and Social Welfare Office of this Ministry has instructed that the complaints be given prompt consideration.

&htab;718.&htab;Lastly, the Government states that there is no basis for allegations that Peru fails to comply with the provisions of ConventionNo. 98, inasmuch as the Government has adopted legal measures compatible with the Convention to ensure its satisfactory application. It has established adequate procedural machinery to which the organisations involved have themselves made recourse; indeed, their claims are being examined as indicated in the previous paragraph. Therefore, the statements made by the complainant trade unions are inaccurate inasmuch as the country has legislation and procedures to examine and sanction the alleged actions.

&htab;719.&htab;In a communication of 23 September 1988 the Government refers to the comments made by the harbour master of the port of Callas on this matter, which refute the complainant's allegations that he unfairly granted certificates of navigability and explain that these certificates were not issued by him, but by the Director-General of harbour masters and coast guards. Nevertheless, he had received complaints from the complainant union concerning shortcomings in the maintenance of equipment, the poor living quarters and unhealthy conditions on board; in conformity with the law he had forced the accused to remedy the situations and imposed fines on the defaulting parties.

&htab;720.&htab;The Committee notes that the allegations presented by the Trade Union of Seamen employed by the CPV refer to the violation of Convention No. 98 through acts of anti-union discrimination, the daily harassment of trade union members, the curtailment of workers' acquiredrights, threats of dismissal, back-pay owed to staff, curtailment of leave entitlements, overdue payment of social benefits, the lack of medical care, and the infraction of job security legislation and industrial and occupational safety standards.

&htab;721.&htab;Likewise, the Committee notes that other allegations presented by the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV refer to the partial non-payment since 1982, of wages agreed on in collectiveagreements on wage restructuring, wage parity, work clothes, bonuses for work in refrigerated areas, hours of work and to the harassment of longshoremen through dismissal notices sent to workers on sick leave, the failure to make severance payments and pay "retirement incentives" within the time-limits set down by law; workers have been compelled to give up the hours of work established by collective agreement, as well as any wage increases, economic benefits, and improvement in conditions of work gained through collective bargaining through the so-called "employment contracts", which moreover require workers to give up their membership in the Trade Union of Shoreworkers employed by the CPV.

&htab;722.&htab;The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government, which states that the Peruvian Steamship Company is a government-owned corporation operating under private law which is experiencing financial difficulties. The Committee notes that with reference to the complainants' allegations, the Government states that it has requested information from the labour authorities concerning the protests made against the CPV; that the Government considers some of these allegations to be vague, and states that others are currently being examined by the labour authorities in accordance with applicable legal procedures. Moreover, the Committee notes that the labour authorities have ordered that these complaints be examined expeditiously, and that the Government affirms that Peru has enacted legal measures which are compatible with Convention No. 98, which guarantee its satisfactory application and which establish pertinent procedural machinery for that purpose.

&htab;723.&htab;As regards certain allegations presented by the complainants,namely the non-payment by the CPV to workers of 12 periods of basic wages and 12 supplementary bonuses, the grant of leave after two years of uninterrupted service, the delays in payment for length-of-service compensation payments, the non-payment by the company of social security contributions and family medical insurance premiums even though it deducts and withholds funds for these purposes, as well as the dismissal of workers while on sick leave contrary to legal provisions, the Committee points out that it is not competent to examine legislation concerning social security or conditions of work, and is therefore not in a position to decide on these allegations. [See 218th Report, Case No. 1113 (India), para. 715.]

&htab;724.&htab;As regards the complainants' allegations concerning discriminatory anti-union practices and interference, such as the daily harassment of workers, threats of dismissal, the creation of the so-called "positions of trust" filled by workers who have resigned from the trade union and who are paid twice the salary for the same work, and the incentives offered to workers to resign from the trade union, among others, the Committee notes that, on the one hand, the allegations submitted by the complainants are general in nature or insufficiently detailed to enable the Committee fully to examine the problem and, on the other hand, it notes the Government's observations to the effect that these protests have been brought to the attention of the labour authorities who are now examining them.

&htab;725.&htab;In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:

(a) The Committee requests the complainants to send more detailed and precise information on the allegations concerning the charges of interference and anti-union discrimination.

(b) The Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the decisions taken by labour authorities concerning the complaints under examination; in general, it recalls the principle that no person should suffer discrimination in employment on the grounds of legitimate trade union activities.