Interim Report - Report No 83, 1965

Case No 422 (Ecuador) - Complaint date: 24-NOV-64 - Closed

1. 375. This case was examined by the Committee at its session in February 1965, when it made an interim report which appears in paragraphs 204 to 209 of its 81st Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 161st Session (March 1965).
2. 376. Ecuador has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 377. In examining this case the Committee noted that the Latin-American Confederation of Christian Trade Unionists (C.L.A.S.C.) had submitted its first complaint on 24 November 1964. It was then forwarded to the Government, which sent in its observations on 5 January 1965. The complainants had submitted another complaint in a letter dated 23 December 1964, but the Government had not made any observations on it.
2. 378. In its communication dated 24 November 1964 C.L.A.S.C declared that the Ecuadorian Federation of Catholic Workers (C.E.D.O.C.) was being systematically subjected to discrimination and prosecution which constituted an infringement of freedom of association. In September 1964 trade union leaders Francisco Checa and Carlos Aroca were incarcerated in Machachi on being apprehended attending a meeting of peasants convened to found a peasants' league for that locality. At approximately the same time in Naranjito, trade unionists Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara and Mesias Zamora Pérez were incarcerated for distributing leaflets to peasants with the aim of convening a meeting to found another peasants' league. At a later date, in the province of Chimborazo, the civil and military chief of the area imprisoned a number of peasant leaders for forming a trade union on the Huayllamba estate and campaigning for their rights; he also threatened the C.E.D.O.C leaders in the province, sending a telegram to C.E.D.O.C reading as follows: " Owner Huayllamba estate settled problems fairly. Demagogic party campaign you are conducting cannot be tolerated in any circumstances. Extremist agitators in your service will be treated as they deserve." The complainants concluded their communication by declaring that the Ministry of Labour was pursuing a policy which was especially discriminatory against C.E.D.O.C and that in some areas the authorities prohibited trade union meetings and had also abolished the right to strike.
3. 379. In its reply dated 5 January 1965 the Government declared that C.E.D.O.C had never been subjected to any discrimination whatsoever, nor had its leaders been persecuted. The organisation concerned enjoyed the same safeguards for pursuing its trade union activity as other workers' associations formed in compliance with the law and recognised by the Government. Furthermore, the Government rejected the allegation that a military chief used force to defend the estate owners. The Huayllamba estate case was finally settled by the intervention of an official sent by the Director-General of Labour, and an agreement between employer and agricultural workers was signed. Unfortunately the trade union backed by C.E.D.O.C, deviating from its specific objectives, engaged in incitement to violence and thus brought about the subsequent intervention of the police authorities after the labour aspect of the problem had been solved.
4. 380. The Committee observed that the Government in its reply made no reference to the specific allegations contained in the complaint regarding the imprisonment of Messrs. Francisco Checa, Carlos Aroca, Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara and Mesias Zamora Pérez. With reference to the detention of a number of trade union leaders on the Huayllamba estate the Government declared that the labour problem which had arisen had already been settled and that it was the subsequent conduct of the trade union which had brought about the intervention of the police authorities.
5. 381. In these circumstances the Committee considered that the elements submitted by the Government in its reply were not sufficient to enable the situation to be evaluated in the light of the allegations presented by the complainants; consequently it recommended the Governing Body to decide to request the Government to be good enough to furnish its detailed observations on the various events mentioned in the complaint, including the precise reasons for the intervention of the authorities in the Huayllamba estate case and to decide in the meantime to postpone further examination of this case until the information requested and the observations concerning the complaint presented on 23 December 1964 had been received.
6. 382. In this latter communication C.L.A.S.C alleged that Mr. Hugo Espinosa, a C.E.D.O.C leader, had been arrested on 10 December 1964 and was being held incommunicado. At the same time two other leaders, Luis Cajas and Teodoro Reinoso, had also been arrested, although they had subsequently been released. The complaint also dealt with a number of problems affecting the peasants of Chimborazo province, where the attitude of the civil and military chief had prevented them from organising and insisting on their rights, which included payment of over four years' back wages.
7. 383. The Government has not yet sent in its observations on these allegations. Nor has it made any observations concerning the allegations relating to the arrest of the trade unionists Francisco Checa, Carlos Aroca, Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara and Mesias Zamora Pérez mentioned in the complaint dated 24 November 1964.
8. 384. However, the Government forwarded two letters dated 6 and 8 April 1965 concerning the allegations relating to events on the Huayllamba estate.
9. 385. In these letters the Government stated in the first place that a number of peasants on the estate had been arrested for alleged infringement of property rights; as soon as an investigation was made into the case the peasants concerned were immediately set free without having been in any way ill-treated by the police authorities. In the second place the Government explained that the claim by the workers on the Huayllamba estate was for grazing land for their animals, since they considered that they did not have enough to support their livestock. This claim was rejected by the landowner, but the dispute was settled on 24 October 1964 when an agreement was signed in the presence of the labour inspector. A copy of this agreement was also forwarded by the Government.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 386. In all the circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) with respect to the allegations relating to intervention by the authorities in the dispute on the Huayllamba estate, to note that the persons who were arrested have been set free and that the dispute itself has been settled following the signing of an agreement between the parties and to decide therefore that no purpose would be served by continuing its examination of this aspect of the case;
   • (b) with respect to the allegations relating to the arrest of union leaders Francisco Checa, Carlos Aroca, Pedro Moreno Rocha, Carlos Idovro Vergara, Mesias Zamora Pérez, Hugo Espinosa, Luis Cajas and Teodoro Reinoso, and similarly with respect to the allegations relating to infringements of trade union rights in Chimborazo province, to request the Government once more to furnish its observations at the earliest possible date;
   • (c) to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report as soon as it has received the Government's observations on the matters referred to in subparagraph (b) above.
     • Geneva, 26 May 1965. (Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.