Interim Report - Report No 114, 1970

Case No 573 (Bolivia (Plurinational State of)) - Complaint date: 01-OCT-68 - Closed

1. 142. The complaints are contained in a communication sent to the ILO by the Bolivian National Trade Union Committee for the Defence of Workers' Rights on 1 October 1968, and in a communication sent to the ILO on 7 February 1969 by the Confederation of American Teachers. The texts of these complaints were referred to the Government of Bolivia, which in a communication dated 16 January 1969, sent in certain preliminary observations on the first of the two complaints.
2. 143. Bolivia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has not ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 144. The National Trade Union Committee for the Defence of Workers' Rights states in its communication of 7 October 1968 that it was set up " as a result of the dissolution of the Bolivian Workers' Confederation by administrative authority, through the decree issued by the Governing Military Junta on 17 May 1965 ". It states that as far as trade union matters are concerned, certain decisions taken by the Junta (which remained in power until August 1966) are still in force. Presidential decrees, promulgated in May and June 1965, had ordered the reorganisation of trade unions, cancelled the mandate of all persons holding office in any trade union, federation, Confederation, or central workers' organisation and provided that for trade union elections to be valid they must be presided over by a representative of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and by the civil or military authority of the district. Once the provisions of these decrees had been met, the trade union executive committees which were thus elected were to be recognised by separate Ministerial Orders. Candidates for election to trade union office were required to submit their candidature together with a statement of their qualifications to the Ministry ten days before the date of the election. By these measures, the complainants declare, the Government disregarded the existence of the trade union organisations, interfered in their internal matters and selected candidates for trade union office. It is alleged that this interference placed the workers' organisations under the Government's supervision and absolute control.
2. 145. The complaint states that on the basis of such provisions the Government, by decrees issued in May and June 1965, and by a decree issued on 7 September 1968, took the following specific measures: withdrawal of recognition from the Bolivian Workers' Confederation as well as from the branch Confederations, federations and trade unions; withdrawal of recognition from the Federation of Bolivian Mineworkers' Unions; confiscation of all trade union property; reduction of wages for the miners employed by the Mining Corporation of Bolivia; imprisonment, banishment and persecution of trade union leaders, " many of whom ", like certain miners employed by the Bolivian Mining Corporation, " do not know, even today, the reason for their imprisonment "; measures of violence against the working population of Sora Sora, Siglo XX, Huanuni, Animas-Chocaya and Quechisla, culminating in the massacre which took place on 23 June 1967, in Catavi; and the mass dismissal of 25,000 teachers.
3. 146. The complainants go on to say that on 23 September 1966 new trade union regulations were issued by decree, which at present govern the whole of trade union life in Bolivia and violate not only ILO Conventions but also the law of the land, including Constitutional provisions. In accordance with the decree, they add, the Ministry of Labour " shall exercise over-all guidance over the trade union organisations without prejudice to freedom of action "; the legal personality of every trade union organisation shall be obtained by means of an order signed by the President of the Republic; elected officers must be " recognised by name by the Government by means of a special Ministerial Order ". The decree limits the authority of trade unions to spend their own funds to the amount of 1,000 Bolivian pesos (the equivalent of $90). Trade union officials must be Bolivian by birth, have worked at least six months in the undertaking, and cannot be on the committee of any political party. The complainants further criticise the system provided in the decree for the composition of trade union executive committees.
4. 147. The complainants take the view that such provisions infringe Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), since they prevent the Constitution of trade union organisations except with the prior authorisation, control and supervision of the Ministry; and since the authorities are empowered to recognise trade union officers and interfere in the drawing up of the Constitutions and rules and in the establishment of federations, Confederations and central workers' organisations, by restricting their number or directly depriving them of recognition. Furthermore, job security is not guaranteed to workers whose term of trade union office has expired, who are often subjected to slanderous accusations of crime, persecuted and banished.
5. 148. Finally, the complainants maintain that the stated conditions considerably affect trade union life in the country, since the Government, in addition to interfering in trade union organisation, has seized the miners' radio transmitters and the premises of the unions, and frozen union funds in bank accounts. They urge that the ILO send a committee to investigate their complaints.
6. 149. The complaint summarised above is signed by the President and Secretary of the National Trade Union Committee for the Defence of Workers' Rights, and also by " officers of the national trade union organisations affiliated to this Committee ", namely the Federation of Oil Industry Workers, the Bolivian Printers' Federation, the Radio Workers' Union, the National Federation of Urban Schoolteachers, the National Confederation of Rural Schoolteachers, the La Paz Building Workers' Federation, and other bodies.
7. 150. In its complaint dated 7 February 1969, the Confederation of American Teachers says that: " the deplorable financial circumstances of Bolivian teachers are at the root of the protest movement in which the majority of the country's teachers have taken part ". Instead of meeting the teachers' legitimate demands for salary increases and improving their conditions of work, the Government, it is alleged, has ordered the dismissal of 25,000 teachers. It is further alleged that a " Supreme Council for Education " has been set up, which reports direct to the President and " with which the teachers are obliged to re-register without their union being able to intervene in any way ". According to the complaint, this is a requirement imposed upon the dismissed teachers if they wish to have a chance to work the following year.
8. 151. It is alleged that the Government of Bolivia has taken a series of repressive measures against the leaders of the teachers' unions. The complainants state that the General Secretary of the National Federation of Urban Schoolmasters, Mr. R. Dávila Morales, and the Press Secretary of this Federation, Mr. A. Quiroz Elguera, have been expelled from the country.
9. 152. The Confederation of American Teachers, which has stated that it has affiliated organisations in Bolivia (the National Educational Workers' Confederation and the Departmental Schoolteachers' Federation of La Paz), considers that the Government has infringed the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. It hopes that ILO intervention will induce the authorities to quash the order for the dismissal of 25,000 teachers, to restore the right to bargain collectively and to put an end to " the persecution of leaders of teachers' unions officially recognised by the administrative authorities of Bolivia ".
10. 153. So far, the Government has supplied only certain observations relating to the complaint lodged by the National Trade Union Committee for the Defence of Workers' Rights. In its communication dated 16 January 1959 it asserts that the said Committee is not a legally constituted trade union body and operates outside the laws of the country. Before these complaints can be investigated, therefore, in the Government's opinion, the complainants should provide the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association with convincing proof both of its lawful Constitution and legal personality " which may entitle it to speak on behalf of the workers of the country ". The Government says that it is prepared to reply at greater length, if and when this point is cleared up.

154. The Committee observes that the Government's answer, dealing with one of the complaints made, suggests that the Committee first ascertain the exact legal standing of one of the complainants. The Committee recalls that in Case No. 571, relating to Bolivia, a similar situation arose when the Government requested that before the allegations were investigated the legal status of a workers' organisation-the Bolivian Trade Union Action (ASIB), mentioned in the complaint-should first be ascertained. At its session in May 1969, besides indicating that the complaint lodged in Case No. 571 came from an organisation with regard to which no possible question of receivability could arise, the Committee observed that if ASIB had no legal existence through lack of recognition or registration, this might be due to a slip by the organisation concerned or to a refusal by the authorities to grant registration.

1. 155. The Committee must also point out here, as it has done in earlier cases, that under the procedure governing the submission of complaints relating to violation of freedom of association, such complaints must come either from employers' or workers' organisations, or from governments. In its First Report, the Committee noted that it was sometimes suggested that persons purporting to act on behalf of such an organisation were not entitled to do so because the organisation had been dissolved or was not recognised. In such cases, the exact authority of the persons claiming to act on behalf of the organisation concerned might be disputed and the Committee stated that it would be prepared to consider such questions on their merits but would not regard any complaint as being irreceivable simply because the government in question had dissolved or not recognised the organisation on behalf of which the complaint was made. In taking this view, it had been influenced by the conclusions unanimously approved by the Governing Body in 1937 in the Labour Party of the Island of Mauritius case when considering a representation under article 24 of the Constitution of the Organisation (then article 23). In the Mauritius case the Governing Body laid down the principle that it would exercise its discretion in deciding whether or not a body was to be regarded as an industrial association for the purpose of the Constitution of the Organisation and would not consider itself bound by any national definition of the term " industrial association ". The Committee had always followed the same principles when considering the receivability of complaints which came before it. It accordingly took the view that a complaint would not be irreceivable simply because the government against which it was lodged had dissolved or had not recognised the organisation lodging it.
2. 156. In the present case, the National Trade Union Committee for the Defence of Workers' Rights claims to have been set up as a result of the dissolution of the Bolivian Workers' Confederation by administrative authority. Moreover, the complaint was signed also by several Bolivian occupational organisations claiming to be affiliated to the National Trade Union Committee. The Government has made no observations concerning the legal standing of these latter organisations, but even if it were assumed that they are not recognised or registered at present, attention must be drawn to the fact that to a large extent the allegations made relate to the provisions of various decrees promulgated in 1965, which were revised by another decree issued in 1966, and which, according to the complaint, prevent the free establishment and operation of trade union organisations and the free election of their representatives.
3. 157. This being so, the Committee feels that the argument adduced by the Government of Bolivia, to wit, that the National Trade Union Committee for the Defence of Workers' Rights does not exist from the legal point of view, does not constitute a reason to consider that the complaint submitted by the latter with the support of other Bolivian trade union organisations is irreceivable.
4. 158. Moreover, certain aspects of the complaint relate to matters already considered by the Committee in other cases relating to Bolivia.
5. 159. Thus, at its session in November 1965, with regard to the decrees promulgated that year (relating to the election of trade union representatives, the number of organisations which could be constituted, and other general matters concerning trade unions), the Committee submitted the following recommendations (among others) to the Governing Body, which adopted them at its 164th Session (February-March 1966):
6. (a) to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the provisions of Decrees Nos. 07171, 07172 and 07205 referring to intervention by the public authorities at the different stages of the procedure of electing trade union officials are incompatible with the guarantees to which trade unions are entitled under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Bolivia, and to suggest therefore that the Government should consider amending them so as to enable workers' organisations to elect their representatives freely, the public authorities being obliged to refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof;
7. (b) to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the provisions of Decrees Nos. 07171, 07172 and 07204, preventing the re-election of trade union officials and attaching other conditions to their election (being actively employed by the undertaking concerned, and not having been sentenced for an offence) are inconsistent with the right guaranteed by the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), to all workers to elect their representatives in full freedom, and to suggest in consequence that the Government examine the possibility of amending those provisions so as to enable workers' organisations to elect their representatives in full freedom;
8. (c) to draw the Government's attention to the importance it has always attached to the principle that workers and employers should have the right to establish and to join organisations " of their own choosing ", as laid down by Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), which has been ratified by Bolivia, and to suggest in consequence to the Government that it consider amending Decree No. 07204 to bring it into line with the afore-mentioned principle;
9. (d) to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the provision of Decree No. 0720 preventing the forming of proper trade unions in recently established undertakings is not in keeping with the principle laid down by Article 2 of Convention No. 87 that all workers should have the right to establish organisations of their own choosing, and to suggest that its amendments be considered so as to enable all workers to establish their own organisations in accordance with the afore-mentioned principle;
10. ......................................................................................................................................................
11. 160. The allegations made in the present case refer in part to specific measures said to have affected, and to affect still, the Bolivian Workers' Confederation, the Bolivian Federation of Mineworkers' Unions, and other bodies. Furthermore, it is specifically claimed that the new trade union legislation promulgated on 23 September 1966 (replacing the decrees issued in 1965) contains various clauses which run counter to the principles of freedom of association.
12. 161. The Committee has not yet received any observations from the Government concerning the complaint lodged by the Confederation of American Teachers.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 162. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to ask the Government to be good enough to send in its detailed comments on the substance of the complaints made in this case (as summarised in paragraphs 144 to 152 above), and to take note of the present interim report, it being understood that the Committee will submit a further report once the observations referred to above have been received.