Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Dominican Republic (Ratification: 1953)

The Committee notes the observations of the National Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CNUS), the Autonomous Confederation of Workers’ Unions (CASC) and the National Confederation of Dominican Workers (CNTD) dated 31 August 2018 and 3 September 2019, which refer, firstly, to issues addressed in this observation and, secondly, to allegations of repeated acts of anti-union discrimination during the negotiation process of a collective agreement and the lack of material resources of labour inspectors. Noting the repeated nature of the allegations of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

The Committee notes the replies of the Government to the observations of the CNUS, the CASC and the CNTD of 2016. The Committee notes that some of these issues were examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos 2786 and 3297. The Committee also notes the Government’s replies regarding the allegations of the obstruction of collective bargaining in two enterprises.

With respect to the establishment of the Roundtable on Matters relating to International Labour Standards, the Government reports that the Roundtable has been operating regularly since June 2018, with the objective of gaining a knowledge of the cases and finding a solution to which all parties agree. The Committee also notes the observations of the CNUS, the CASC and the CNTD of 2018 alleging that the Roundtable is ineffective. The Committee refers to its observation under the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144) and trusts that the matters addressed in the present observation will be taken into account in the discussions that take place at the Roundtable.

Application of the Convention in the private sector

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Effective and rapid application of dissuasive penalties against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous observations, the Committee noted the establishment of the Commission for Reviewing and Updating the Labour Code and the procedural difficulties faced by the magistrates’ courts in the application of the penalties envisaged in sections 720 and 721 of the Labour Code, and requested the Government to adopt procedural and substantive reforms to enable the effective and rapid application of penalties and to provide statistics concerning the length of judicial proceedings. The Government indicates, in relation to the length of judicial proceedings, that on average: (i) in the first instance a case is heard within six months; (ii) an appeal is heard within six further months; and (iii) in the event that the case is subject to a cassation appeal, the ruling is handed down within approximately one year. The Committee further notes the observations of the CNUS, the CASC and the CNTD in relation to the delays in the cases regarding anti-union discrimination, which may be before the courts for between six and seven years. While noting the absence of information from the Government on the procedural difficulties faced by the magistrates’ courts in the application of sections 720 and 721 of the Labour Code, as well as the diverging opinions expressed by the Government and the trade union organizations in relation to the duration of judicial proceedings, the Committee recalls that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 190). In light of the foregoing, the Committee once again expresses the firm hope that procedural and substantive reforms will be adopted in the near future to enable the effective and rapid application of penalties as a deterrent against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to send detailed statistics concerning the length of judicial proceedings relating to anti-union acts and to provide information on the application of penalties in practice, and on the deterrent effect thereof (amount of fines imposed and number of enterprises concerned), as well as on the number of union leaders reinstated under sections 389 to 394 of the Labour Code.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Majorities required for collective bargaining. For many years, the Committee has been referring to the need to amend sections 109 and 110 of the Labour Code, which stipulate that, in order to engage in collective bargaining, a trade union must represent an absolute majority of the workers in an enterprise or a branch of activity. In this respect, the Government indicates once again that the Commission for Reviewing and Updating the Labour Code is in the process of reviewing the Labour Code and the content of sections 109 and 110 will be discussed in the context of these tripartite consultations. Noting that several years have passed since the review process of the Labour Code began, the Committee firmly hopes that this process will give rise in the near future to the amendment of sections 109 and 110, in accordance with the Committee’s previous observations. The Committee requests the Government to report any developments in this respect.

Application of the Convention in the public service

Articles 1, 2 and 6. Protection of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In its previous comments, the Committee, noting that Act No. 41 08 on the public service only covers a union’s founders and a number of its leaders, requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State fully enjoy specific protection against acts of interference from their employer, providing for sufficient dissuasive penalties against acts of discrimination and interference. The Committee notes with regret the absence of specific information from the Government in this respect and firmly hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure that public servants not engaged in the administration of the State enjoy adequate protection against acts of discrimination and interference.

Articles 4 and 6. Right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that there was no reference to the right to collective bargaining in Act No. 41-08 on the public service or its implementing regulations and requested the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to secure recognition in law of the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that joint meetings have been planned with officials from the Ministry of Public Service in order to examine the possibility of recognizing in law the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee firmly hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to secure recognition in law of the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State and requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this respect.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.