Definitive Report - Report No 241, November 1985

Case No 1293 (Dominican Republic) - Complaint date: 05-JUL-84 - Closed

1. 263. The complaints are contained in communications from the Unified Workers' Confederation (CUT) and the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) dated respectively 5 July and 4 October 1984. The CUT presented additional information in a communication dated 24 July 1984, and the CGT in communications dated 13 and 17 November 1984. The Government replied in communications dated 2 November 1984 and 31 January and 23 May 1985.
2. 264. The Dominican Republic has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 265. The CUT alleges that the following persons were dismissed in connection with trade union activities: Marcelino Manuel Uribe (a trade unionist in the heavy equipment undertaking of the Dominican Cement Works, dismissed without reason on 1 June 1984), Eléas Adames Boyer and Alfonso Sánchez (both trade union leaders, dismissed on 16 June 1984 from the Réo Haina state sugar plantation as part of an operation carried out against the CUT).
2. 266. The CGT alleges in its first communication that the management of the "Porvenir" state sugar plantation pressured trade union leaders to leave the trade union or give up their jobs; the management also stopped the check off deduction of trade union dues in violation of the current collective agreement in force. In its later communication, the CGT states that the trade union in question has reached a satisfactory agreement on these matters with the management of the plantation.
3. 267. The CGT adds that the National Office of Land Transportation (ONATRATE) unfairly dismissed a number of its employees, starting on 8 October 1984. This occurred during trade union elections, which ended on 19 October. According to the CGT, four of the persons concerned featured on one of the two lists of candidates for nomination to the executive committee of the trade union.

B. The Government's reply

1. 268. Referring to the dismissal of Marcelino Manuel Uribe, the Government forwarded a letter from the undertaking where he worked, stating that the reason for the dismissal was undisciplined behaviour in the undertaking, to the extent that "as regards the incidents occurring in April and the would be strike of May 1984, this person was one of the instigators of that strike ... the said person is not a member of any trade union organisation". According to the Government, Mr. Uribe was dismissed under section 69 of the Labour Code.
2. 269. The Government also states that the management of the "Porvenir" sugar plantation and the CGT reached satisfactory agreements on the matters referred to in the complaints.
3. 270. The Government states in addition that Eléas Adames Boyer and Alfonso Sánchez were not dismissed due to trade union activities. The former was dismissed for failing to discharge satisfactorily the duties for which he had been engaged. The latter was reinstated when it was determined that the reason for his dismissal was not sufficiently valid.
4. 271. As regards the dismissals in the ONATRATE, the Government states that some dismissals did in fact take place owing to the change in management, as a result of the administrative reorganisation of the office, but in no case did they relate to trade union activities, as is proved by the fact that most of the persons dismissed did not belong to the trade union operating in ONATRATE.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 272. The Committee notes that the parties to the collective dispute which occurred in the "Porvenir" sugar plantation have reached an agreement which is satisfactory to both parties. The Committee also notes that trade union leader Alfonso Sánchez has been reinstated in the Río Haina sugar plantation. Lastly, the Committee takes note of the Government's explanations concerning the dismissals which took place in the ONATRATE.
2. 273. On the other hand, the Committee observes that, according to the Government, the trade union leader Eléas Adames Boyer was dismissed for failing to discharge satisfactorily the duties for which he had been engaged. In this respect, the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided more precise information on the specific reasons why the work of this trade union leader was considered unsatisfactory. In addition, the Committee observes that, as regards the dismissal of Marcelino Manuel Uribe, the Government has forwarded a letter from the undertaking where this person worked, indicating that his dismissal was directly linked to "the incidents occurring in April and the would-be strike of May 1984", of which he was "one of the instigators". The Committee also observes that Mr. Uribe was dismissed under section 69 of the Labour Code, that is, without a reason being given. In these circumstances, the Committee regrets that Mr. Uribe was dismissed for carrying out trade union activities, thereby infringing Article 1 of Convention No. 98. It draws the attention of the Government to the principle that it does not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination - as set out in Convention No. 98 - is accorded by legislation which, in practice, enables employers, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law in cases of unjustified dismissal, to get rid of any worker when the true reason for dismissal is his trade union membership or activities. (See, for example, 211th Report, Case No. 1053 (Dominican Republic), para. 163.) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 274. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
   • a) The Committee notes that Marcelino Manuel Uribe was dismissed for carrying out trade union activities, thereby infringing Article 1 of Convention No. 98.
   • b) The Committee draws the attention of the Government to the principle that it does not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination is accorded by legislation which, in practice, enables employers, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law in cases of unjustified dismissal, to get rid of any worker when the true reason for the dismissal is his trade union membership or activities.
   • c) The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to this case.