Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2019, Publication: 108th ILC session (2019)



Written information provided by the Government

The Government of Honduras is providing its observations in accordance with the 2019 report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which in accordance with the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received by the ILO on 1 September 2018. Those observations refer to issues examined by the Committee and specifically on the Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018).

The Government’s observations are presented in the same order followed in the report and, in order to facilitate understanding, are divided into four parts:

Part I. Trade union rights and civil liberties

Part II. Legislative issues: Reforms to the Labour Code

Part III. 2017 amendment to section 335 of the Penal Code

Part IV. Application of the Convention in practice (registration of new trade unions)

Part I. Trade union rights and civil liberties

The Government reports that, through the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT), a number of actions have been taken with officials in the judicial system, and in particular:

Supreme Court of Justice:

(a) On 28 February 2019, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (STSS) sent an official communication to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court requesting it to:

– appoint a representative of the Court (Labour Chamber) as a liaison officer and point of contact for the MEPCOIT;

– instruct those responsible to give priority to these cases, expediting the process in accordance with the law;

– instruct those responsible to prepare a report, to be sent to the ILO, of the progress made in cases before the courts as set out in the attached table by 13 of March;

(b) On 19 March 2019, the Ministry received official communication PCSJ No. 89-2019 from the President of the Judiciary, Mr Rolando Edgardo Argueta Pérez, containing the following information:

– Regarding point 1 of the request, I am happy to inform you that Mr Edgardo Cáceres Castellanos, a judge of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court, has been appointed as the point of contact for this institution.

– Regarding point 2, communication has been established with the competent authorities in order that, within their areas of competence, they can expedite the process in accordance with the law.

– Regarding point 3, attached are reports from the courts that are reviewing the cases

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

(a) On 28 February 2019, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security sent an official communication to the Public Prosecutor, Mr Oscar Chinchilla, requesting him to:

– appoint a representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office as a liaison officer and contact for the MEPCOIT;

– instruct those responsible to give priority to these cases, expediting the investigation process and/or appointing a special team for that purpose;

– instruct those responsible to prepare a report, to be sent to the ILO, of the progress made in the cases set out in the attached table by 13 March.

(b) As a result of this request, and following the appointment as liaison officer and contact of the Vice Director-General of Prosecutors, Ms Loany Patricia Alvarado Sorto, the following meetings were held:

– On 29 March, a meeting was held with the MEPCOIT and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr José M. Salgado, with the aim of establishing institutional cooperation mechanisms. At the meeting, the appointment of Ms Alvarado as liaison officer for the Sectoral Committee was approved.

– On 26 April, a second working meeting was held with tripartite representation in which it was decided that priority should be given to the investigations and, to that effect, the Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed to publish a national communication with a view to updating the cases and to disaggregate the list of cases by type of crime and those for which no action could be taken as no complaint had been made by the victims.

– On 9 May, a third meeting was held with the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Government and employer representatives. Worker representatives were not present. During the meeting, the Public Prosecutor, reviewing the 22 cases, indicated that seven cases were under investigation, five cases were before the courts, there were no records of five cases (charges had not been brought for the crimes that were the subject of the complaints), and the remaining cases had been dismissed or closed. They also committed to producing an overview of the progress made in the cases as soon as possible. In the final part of the meeting it was decided that anti-union violence could not be established as the motive for the crimes until the investigations were concluded in each case. However, the investigations would take into consideration the possible anti-union nature of the crimes.

The Government states that, in order to provide prompt and effective protection for all trade union leaders and members in a situation of risk, an Act and mechanism are in place, regarding which a tripartite workshop on the National Protection System was held within the framework of the MEPCOIT, aimed at coordinating actions and in which the following aspects of its operation were highlighted:

(1) The State recognizes the right to defend human rights.

(2) Honduras adopted the Act on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Social Communicators and Justice Officials (Decree No. 34-2015) of 16 April 2015, published in the Official Bulletin on 15 May 2015.

(3) The General Regulations to the Act on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Social Communicators and Justice Officials was adopted by Agreement No. 059-2016, published on 20 August 2016.

(4) The purpose of the protection mechanism is to recognize, promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, contained in the Constitution of the Republic and international law instruments, of all natural or legal persons dedicated to the promotion and defence of human rights, freedom of expression and jurisdictional tasks, at risk because of their activity.

(5) Emphasis is placed on the duty to provide special protection for rights defenders (obligation to respect and prevent).

(6) The population benefiting from or targeted by the Act is all persons who exercise the right, individual or collective, to promote and strive for protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels, which includes environmental activists and those who preserve natural resources.

(7) Risk and imminent risk are defined as follows:

– Risk: the probability of the occurrence of a threat or attack to which a person, group or community is exposed, as a direct consequence of the performance of their activities or functions.

– Imminent risk: the existence of threats or attacks that represent the impending materialization of such threats or a new attack that may seriously affect life, physical integrity or personal freedom (extraordinary procedure through which urgent protection measures are implemented).

(8) Types of protection measures:

– Protection measures: evacuation, temporary relocation, escorts, home security guards, panic buttons, installation of cameras, locks and lights or other security measures, bulletproof vests, metal detectors, armoured vehicles and anything else required.

– Preventive measures: defence and self-defence instructions and handbooks, self-defence classes, recognition by the departmental/municipal authorities of the work carried out by these people, support for human rights observers and journalists, opportunity to alert the authorities.

(9) Measures to respond to extensive risk:

– Preventive and protection measures for the close family of the person receiving protection shall be determined on the basis of a risk assessment conducted among the people requesting or receiving protection to establish whether the risk extends to the spouses, cohabitees, ascendants, descendants and dependants of persons requesting or receiving protection. The same criteria shall apply to persons who participate in the same activities, organization, group or social movement as the person receiving protection.

(10) 2018 statistics:

Since 2015, 427 requests for protection measures have been processed, of which, as at 28 February 2019, 210 fall under the responsibility of the Directorate-General of the Protection System, classified by target population under the Act as follows:

– 134 human rights defenders;

– 28 journalists;

– 27 social communicators;

– 21 justice officials;

(11) Current cases involving trade unionists under the National Protection System.

There are currently four reports submitted by trade unionists under the protection of the National Protection System, containing information provided as follow-up to the inter-institutional round table held within the Public Prosecutor’s Office on 26 April 2019.

The persons benefiting from these protection measures are:

– Miguel Ángel López: resident of the city of Tocoa, departament of Colon;

– Moisés Sánchez: resident of the city of Choluteca;

– Nelson Geovanny Núñez: currently outside of the country;

– Martha Patricia Riera: case closed.

The Government reports the following administrative fines imposed under Decree No. 178-2016, as well as the following judicial proceedings resulting from or related to the proceedings set out in the Decree:

(1) Fines imposed following inspections in 2018:

– For obstruction: 17,750,000.00;

– For freedom of association: 8,286,209.28;

– Others: 240,512,050.84;

– Total amount collected in favour of workers: 1,100,000,000.00 Honduran lempira (L).

[Chart not included]

(2) Inspections carried out in 2019: 7,306.

– Cases referred to the Attorney General’s Office in 2018, 95 Cases; L6,964,467.03.

– 212 fines totalling L266,548,260.12 in Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Ceiba, Choluteca.

– 22 businesses fined a total of L2,549,115.00 in 2019.

– 12 complaints made to human resources inspectors so far in 2019.

The Government has taken due note of the indication by the Committee on the Application of Standards that it should use the MEPCOIT forum to establish a channel for the exchange of information between the authorities and the trade union movement with regard to anti-union violence. In this regard, the Government reports that it has taken all necessary measures to ensure that:

(a) all the competent authorities, especially the police force, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judiciary, take coordinated and priority action to address the violence suffered by members of the trade union movement;

(b) the Public Prosecutor’s Office has been requested, when planning and conducting investigations, to take full and systematic account of the possible anti-union nature of murders of members of the trade union movement and the possible links between the murders of members of the same trade union, and to ensure that the investigations target both the perpetrators and the instigators of the crimes;

(c) information exchange between the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the trade union movement is being strengthened through the MEPCOIT;

(d) resources are being allocated for both investigations into acts of anti-union violence and protection schemes for members of the trade union movement.

The Government indicates that it is investigating the allegations of the ITUC regarding police violence and arrest warrants. Official communication SEDS–DDHH-911-2019 of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Security establishes the following:

(a) The relevant request for information was sent to the Police Investigation Department (DPI) which, in response, indicated in official communication D-DPI-N-0766-2019 of 15 May 2019 that its database only contains data related to various persons with the same first and family name as the person who is sought, which is why it suggests providing more specific data, such as an identity or passport number, to enable the search criteria to be tailored to the right person.

(b) With regard to the alleged police repression, we can report that this Department carried out a search in the Online Police System (SEPOL), a digital platform into which police information is entered daily at the national level on all operations carried out by members of the police. As of 9 March 2018, there are no updates in the SEPOL platform pertaining to the dissolution of demonstrations which refer to the transnational agricultural enterprise. As the information attached to your request is vague with regard to particulars such as the place of the alleged acts and the names of the persons involved in the acts, which makes it difficult to find the specific information required, we suggest that you provide specific information on the alleged acts so that we can reply in a precise manner.

(c) Nevertheless, the Ministry of Security wishes to emphasize its commitment and interest in guaranteeing the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic, which establishes the basic principles that must underpin the work and functions of the Honduran National Police, namely: to safeguard the security of people and property, to maintain public order, to prevent and combat crime, to assist other justice system officials and implement the legal provisions issued by the competent authority as well as other activities likely to be required with respect to crimes committed, all in strict conformity with human rights.

The Government indicates that the Directorate-General of the Protection System, according to investigation file DGSP-2018-012/D, initiated legal proceedings in the case of the president and vice-president of the Union of Workers of Star (SintraStar). The above-mentioned document indicates that the decision was taken, in a meeting of the technical committee, to suspend the protection measures assigned to Mr Lino Rosa Hernández Garmendia as he is out of the country and his date of return is unknown.

Part II. Legislative issues : Reform of the Labour Code

Articles 2 et seq. of the Convention relating to the establishment, autonomy and activities of trade unions

Current situation

(a) The Government of Honduras reaffirms its political will to take action for the adoption of reforms to the Labour Code that is in force in order to bring it into conformity with ratified ILO Conventions. This process has been carried out gradually through social dialogue and tripartite collaboration in the Economic and Social Council (CES), as occurred with chapter III of the Labour Code in relation to the new Act on Labour Inspection, Decree No. 178-2016, of 23 January 2017, published in La Gaceta.

(b) With regard to the pending reforms to achieve conformity with Convention No. 87, and recalling the events of 2014, when the trade union confederations expressed their reservations, as the ILO is already aware, the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security prepared a new proposal taking up again the provisions left in suspense in 2014 to serve as a basis for the discussions.

(c) Through communication STSS-416-18, dated 9 August 2018, the Government proposal for amendments to the Labour Code was sent to the social partners for their analysis and discussion in the CES, and was communicated to the MEPCOIT, the tripartite technical body responsible for providing the necessary forum for the parties involved in labour disputes arising out of failure to comply with ILO Conventions, so that they can enter into dialogue and reach agreements to resolve their differences.

(d) The MEPCOIT began functioning in September 2018, setting as a priority the technical review of the proposed amendments to the Labour Code, and taking as a basic document for the discussions the proposal made by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security.

(e) The proposal to bring the Labour Code into harmony with ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, put forward by the Government, includes amendments to 14 sections, namely sections 2, 472, 475, 495, 510, 511, 534, 536, 537, 541, 554, 555, 558 and 563.

(f) Nevertheless, the subsequent sessions of the MEPCOIT were devoted to the establishment of a framework to guide its functioning and the determination of a short- and medium-term work plan.

(g) The work plan emphasized the need to strengthen the capacities of the members of the MEPCOIT in relation to freedom of association, among other subjects, as a basis for the subsequent process of dialogue on the reforms referred to above.

(h) Accordingly, it was decided to hold the first day of training in January 2019 with a view to undertaking a comparative analysis to enable the participants to understand the lack of compliance between Convention No. 87 and the Labour Code of Honduras. The day of training was held, with the technical assistance requested by the CES from the ILO Regional Office in San José, Costa Rica.

(i) Subsequently, in a meeting held with the preparatory mission for the direct contacts mission, the MEPCOIT emphasized the need to continue receiving ILO technical support to assist in the process of dialogue on the reforms, principally because the worker representatives indicated reservations concerning the implications of the subject for the trade union movement, in anticipation of a period of in-depth reflection by workers’ organizations, while evaluating the importance of holding the dialogue process in the CES.

(j) In 2019, the subject of the reform of the Labour Code was taken up again by the MEPCOIT, with the initial commitment of the social partners to provide the technical secretariat of the CES with their respective comments and proposals rapidly concerning the amendments proposed by the Government with a view to facilitating the exchange of information and the commencement of discussions.

(k) In further meetings planned to address the same subject, the workers’ representatives shared their vision of undertaking a comprehensive revision of the Labour Code, and not being confined to the specific points raised in the conclusions of the Conference Committee, and noted the danger of only proposing these amendments to the National Congress in view of the difficulties experienced in the past. Similarly, the employer representatives indicated their readiness to enter into dialogue on amendments to the Labour Code, strictly confined to sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 541, in accordance with the guidance contained in the conclusions of the report of the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 107th Session of the Conference.

(l) We trust that the social partners at the highest level will continue to give priority to dialogue and will make additional efforts to make further progress so that substantial progress can be achieved in the short term.

Part III. 2017 amendment to section 335 of the Penal Code

The Government indicates that the repeal of section 335-B of the Penal Code, known as the “Mordaza Act”, was published by Decree No. 49-2018 in La Gaceta on 14 September 2018, further to its approval by the Executive.

Section 335-B provided that “any person who publicly, or using communication or dissemination media intended for the public, excuses, upholds or justifies the crime of terrorism and any person who has participated in its execution, or who incites another or others to engage in terrorism or its financing, shall be liable to a penalty of between four and eight years of imprisonment”.

Part IV. Application of the Convention in practice (registration of new trade unions)

Trade union registrations 2014–19

The Government of Honduras indicates that various applications have been made for the granting of legal status, with a total of 39 registered between 2014 and March 2019, as indicated below:

– in 2014, five organizations with legal status were registered, all in the private sector;

– in 2015, six organizations with legal status were registered, all in the private sector;

– in 2016, eight organizations were granted legal status, six in the private sector and two in the public sector:

– in 2017, seven organizations were granted legal status, three in the public sector and four in the private sector;

– in 2018, eight organizations were granted legal status, seven in the private sector and one in the public sector;

– between January and March 2019, five organizations were granted legal status, all in the private sector:

Discussion by the Committee

Government representative – The Government of Honduras has the honour of appearing once again before this Committee, as has been the custom in recent years, considering that this body offers a unique opportunity for the ILO to deliver results in terms of policies, laws, standards and new social dialogue bodies. In this respect, today we will provide information in relation to the observations of the Committee of Experts on the Convention and the principal areas in which progress has been made in compliance with the Convention.

The Government recalls that the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards in May 2018, on the case of Honduras in relation to Convention No. 87, urged the Government, among other matters, to accept a direct contacts mission before the next session of the International Labour Conference in 2019.

The mission was carried out exactly three weeks ago, prior to the present Conference, between 20 and 24 May 2019, and was chaired by Rolando Murgas Torraza, to whom, following the completion of the mission, the Government, through the Secretary of Labour and Social Security, Carlos Madero, delivered a detailed report following the order of the report of the Committee of Experts on page 89. The report was also sent to Worker and Employer representatives and the supervisory bodies. It is currently published by this Committee on the ILO website, where it can be accessed to note the progress made up to now.

In view of the above and the fact that the case of Honduras is a case of progress, and as all the progress is set out in the report, which is now in the public domain, as the Government we will confine ourselves to emphasizing the tripartite agreement concluded at the end of the direct contacts mission in the Economic and Social Council (CES), which I will read out in full:

Tripartite agreement seeking mechanisms for the correct and effective application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)

In the presence of the members of the direct contacts mission of the International Labour Organization, and recognizing its importance for the strengthening of effective social dialogue, respect for and the promotion of freedom of association, the Government and the representatives of employers and workers of Honduras, represented by the Secretariat of State on the premises of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP); and the trade union confederations, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH), respectively, conclude on the twenty-fourth day of the month of May 2019 the present agreement intended to seek mechanisms for the correct and effective application of Convention No. 87, ratified by Honduras in 1956.

Anti-union violence

Aware that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate free of violence, pressure and threats of any kind and that protection against anti-union violence is an integral aspect of the policy for the defence of human rights, the parties agree on:

- The urgent creation of a commission on anti-union violence composed, on the one hand, of the authorities of the Secretariat for the General Coordination of the Government (SCGG), the Secretariat of State in the Human Rights Office, the Secretariat of State in the Labour and Social Security Offices; and, on the other, by workers represented by the CGT, CTH and CUTH; and employers represented by the COHEP. The Committee will invite those responsible for justice in the country to join.

The Commission shall be established thirty days after the signature of the present agreement, and the parties shall formally accredit their representatives in the offices of Labour and Social Security.

The Commission on Anti-Union Violence shall have the following functions:

(a) establish a mechanism for direct communication between trade unions and the State authorities;

(b) support flexibility in the application of protection measures for members of the trade union movement who are at risk;

(c) ensure effective support for investigations of cases of anti-union violence for the expeditious clarification of such cases;

(d) inform every six months the workers’ confederations, COHEP, the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS) and the ILO of the results achieved and the action taken to follow up the complaints received;

(e) raise awareness of the protection mechanisms for human rights defenders.

- Ensure the participation of the representatives of the trade union movement in the national mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders.

- The State of Honduras through the STSS shall urge the Public Prosecutor’s Office to take the necessary measures and action to investigate as a priority complaints of acts of anti-union violence against trade unionists which are currently presented and which may be made in future.

- The Commission on Anti-Union Violence shall submit to the CES a report on the situation at the latest sixty days after the date of its constitution.

Legislative reforms

Within the framework of the CES and based on the respective comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, the STSS and representatives of employers, through the COHEP; and of workers, through the CGT, CTH and CUTH, agree to engage in a broad process of discussion and tripartite consensus which, with the existence of adequate conditions, will result in the harmonization of the labour legislation with ILO Convention No. 87.

Strengthening of the Economic and Social Council (CES), in relation to freedom of association

Recognizing the key role of the CES in the development of social dialogue and the need to continue consolidating trust between the parties for the promotion of freedom of association, the parties agree to:

- Approve the rules of procedure of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT), with a view to supporting its effective operation as a body for the resolution of industrial relations disputes that may arise, without prejudice to the right of each organization to make any complaint to the ILO through the established machinery.

- Recognize as a good practice the experience of the Bipartite Commission for the Maquila Sector and promote insofar as possible this good practice in the various sectors of the national economy.

- Request ILO technical assistance in all relevant areas for the promotion of social dialogue.

- Validity: two months

The parties are aware that the effect given in good faith to the present tripartite agreement will be examined by the supervisory bodies of the ILO within the framework of the regular supervision of the application of Convention No. 87.

And this is followed by the signatures of the representatives of rural workers, employers and the Government and, as honorary witness, of Rolando Murgas, Chairperson of the direct contacts mission.

All the commitments made in this agreement have been assumed for their gradual and tripartite implementation in a context of social dialogue, for which as of now we request ILO support and assistance.

Finally, the Government of Honduras wishes to reaffirm its political will, respect and compliance with Conventions and the labour legislation in force, and particularly with this Convention.

Worker members – We are once again before this Committee due to the fact that the Government of Honduras has not been able to protect or respect the right to organize and freedom of association in law or in practice. Last year, the Committee of Experts singled this case out for a double footnote in view of the high level of anti-union violence, the almost total impunity of the perpetrators and the lack of effective protection for trade unionists under threat of violence. Sadly, the situation has not improved over the past year. The Government has not taken measures in practice to ensure that its labour legislation is in conformity with the Convention, nor to ensure effective compliance with the laws that are already on the statute books.

Indeed, the Government of Honduras has not complied with even one of the conclusions adopted by the Committee last year. Just a few days before the beginning of this Conference, the Government deployed armed troops armed with tear gas and live ammunition to put down protests by teachers and doctors who had taken to the streets to denounce the privatization reforms that would undermine public education and health services.

Education and medical care have been subject to severe cuts and multiple corruption scandals under the current Government, with both sectors being faced by severe shortages of personnel and basic equipment, with the result that both systems are on the verge of collapse.

It is to be expected that the final report of the ILO direct contacts mission, which visited the country at the beginning of this month, will confirm what we already know: that workers and unions throughout the country continue to be beset by insurmountable obstacles in the exercise of their fundamental right of freedom of association and organization.

The Network against Anti-Union Violence has independently confirmed 109 acts of anti-union violence in Honduras between January 2015 and February 2019. In 2018 alone, a total of 38 acts of violence against trade unionists were recorded, 11 of which were death threats and, as noted by the Committee of Experts, the Government has not provided information of any progress in the investigation of these death threats, or any previous threats.

In general terms, the Government has not made efforts to resolve anti-union crimes, thereby creating a climate of impunity. As reflected in the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government has made almost no progress in bringing to justice those responsible for the murders of trade unionists. The Committee of Experts refers in its report to a single case of a conviction, and the conviction is under appeal. We agree with the Committee of Experts when it urges the Government to “intensify its efforts” and to “investigate all acts of violence against trade union leaders and members, with the aim of identifying those responsible and punishing both the perpetrators and the instigators of these crimes”. Even though the Government reports the recent establishment of the MEPCOIT, there have not yet been any results.

Moreover, the trade unions inform us that the Attorney General’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office have done nothing to formalize mutual cooperation with a view to ensuring that these cases are dealt with, taking fully into account the possible anti-union nature of the murders of members of the trade union movement. This is an essential element for the appropriate investigation and processing of these cases. In the same way as the Committee of Experts, we therefore demand action to “provide prompt and effective protection to at-risk trade union leaders and members”.

Today, we note with special concern that the trade unions of Honduras do not have confidence in the system. This is due in part to the fact that they are not represented on the National Human Rights Commission, which is the body responsible for developing national policies for prevention and the protection of the life and safety of at-risk population groups, including trade unionists. Their absence impedes the adoption of measures that meet the needs of at-risk trade union leaders and activists.

Honduran trade unions consider it necessary for the Government to establish a body specifically dedicated to the crimes committed against trade unionists, with the representation of the most representative organizations of workers.

Workers throughout the country have suffered constant violations of their right to freedom of association and to organize. In some cases, unions have already requested the intervention of the Committee on Freedom of Association, and the conclusions issued support their claims and urge the Government of Honduras to respect their right to freedom of association and to organize, Nevertheless, in case after case, the Government has not given effect to the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

For example, in Case No. 3287, the Union of Agroindustrial and Allied Workers (STAS) lodged a complaint against its employer, a palm oil company, which had dismissed and harassed trade union leaders with the intention of undermining the local union. The employer lodged a complaint against the notification by the union, received on 9 February 2016, which required the enterprise to engage in collective bargaining with the union. On 27 September 2017, the Ministry of Labour of Honduras invalidated the local union in violation of the law and immediately recognized two employer dominated unions. Two of the leaders were also brutally attacked with machetes. Despite the clear conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in relation to these violations, none of them have been resolved.

In general, the unions continue to suffer serious anti-union reprisals without any solution being found. In one case, a union had been fighting for recognition by the employer and requested the intervention of the Ministry of Labour on various occasions. In practice, as soon as the union notified the employer of its establishment, the enterprise dismissed six different executive bodies of the union.

The Ministry has six cases that are open against the enterprise, yet, up to now, no measures have been taken for the reinstatement of any of these union leaders. The case has even been raised in an international complaint under the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States, but there has still not been any progress.

According to the CAFTA follow-up report of January 2019, the labour inspection services carried out a total of 25,549 inspections in 2018 throughout the country through their various regional offices. In these inspections, 212 violations were identified, all focused on freedom of association and collective bargaining. In global terms, the total fines for these violations amounted to 266,548,260.12 lempiras, or around US$10,901,769. Nevertheless, according to the information provided by the Attorney General’s Office, only five enterprises paid the fines in 2018, to an amount of 100,000 lempiras, or US$4,089.

In almost all cases, the employer has lodged an appeal without any grounds, which sets in motion a procedure that lasts a minimum of one year, the sole purpose of which is to avoid paying the fine.

There is no sign of any effort being made by the Government to ensure that these companies pay the fines that they owe, or to provide the necessary remedies for workers whose rights have been violated. We know for a fact that there is not a single dismissed unionized worker protected by trade union rights or under the protection of the State who has been reinstated by the employer. Worse still, labour inspectors indicate that they are afraid to propose the reinstatement of unionized workers, as employers now systematically lodge complaints against inspectors on various pretexts, including impartiality.

We have been informed that the Ministry of Labour has even actively encouraged employers to use complaint procedures against inspectors who report violations of the national legislation. The complaints procedure was established precisely to correct deficiencies by inspectors in the discharge of their duties, but now they are being used for exactly the opposite purpose. And the internal procedures are not followed, and due process is not respected, resulting in the expulsion of the best inspectors merely for trying to ensure compliance with the law.

In addition to the concerns of the Committee of Experts in relation to the ambiguity of the terminology respecting anti-terrorism contained in section 335, we note that in the publication of the Penal Code issued on 10 May 2019, the text includes for the first time the criminal responsibility of legal persons, including unions, for offences such as public disorder. If used incorrectly, which is a real possibility, unions could be liable to penalties ranging from fines to the prohibition of negotiating collective agreements with state enterprises, the closure of their headquarters and dissolution.

Finally, there are many important gaps in the national legislation which deny workers their right to freedom of association and organization. For over 30 years, the Committee of Experts has been commenting on the need to amend the Labour Code. Nevertheless, even when the Honduran unions call for the reform of the Labour Code, they see that there is currently a total lack of effective social dialogue in the country through which tripartite consensus could be reached on the recommended reforms. Accordingly, the unions are worried about commencing an amendment process of this type, as the resulting Labour Code could be even worse.

Moreover, even when it is possible to reach tripartite consensus, the unions reasonably, based on past experience, fear that the Congress will not respect the consensus and will introduce amendments that are detrimental to workers. The Government must therefore, as we urge it to do, work to recover the confidence of the unions so that they can participate in social dialogue in good faith and so that the procedure respects the priorities of workers and the principles of freedom of association and the right to organize.

Chairperson, as you will have the opportunity to hear from the Honduran workers and their colleagues in the Workers’ group, the situation in Honduras is serious and is not improving. In my final remarks, I will make recommendations concerning the measures that we propose should be taken by the Government and the ILO.

Employer members – We thank the Government of the Republic of Honduras for the information provided on compliance with the Convention. For the second successive year, we are reviewing the case of Honduras in this room in relation to its compliance with the Convention, and we wish to indicate our discomfort with this decision in view of the large number of measures that have been taken since then with a view to giving effect to the observations made by the Committee last year, which I will describe in detail over the next few minutes.

It is important that the criteria for the selection of the cases of countries for examination are objective, clear and transparent so as to reinforce the confidence of all the social partners in the ILO supervisory machinery, including the Committee on the Application of Standards.

A second preliminary issue that we wish to raise relates to the persistence of the Committee of Experts in making reference to and interpretations on the right to strike in circumstances in which the Employers’ group and a large number of member States of the ILO have categorically indicated that it is a right that is not contained in any ILO Convention, and that each country regulates in the manner that is most appropriate to its national context.

Accordingly, in this case, we will not make any reference to the comments that have been made by the Committee of Experts, which is not competent to do so, on the right to strike.

With regard to the country context, the Employers express concern at the insecurity and impunity that are still experienced in Honduras, and which in certain cases take the form of acts of violence against the safety of persons, including workers and employers. As indicated by the Government, violence and insecurity are very deep-rooted problems with serious consequences for Honduras. And although there has been a fall in the murder rate, it continues to be a matter of great concern for all Hondurans.

Inspired by the resolution on civil liberties and the comments of the Committee on Freedom of Association, we consider that freedom of association and the right to organize can only be exercised fully by workers and employers in a climate free of violence, pressure or threats and in which human rights are respected, and that it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure respect for these principles.

With reference to the recommendations made by the Committee at the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference, we wish to emphasize the presentation made by the COHEP in July 2018 to the Assembly of the CES, the tripartite dialogue body, in its report on the case of Honduras, in which it expressed concern at the subject of alleged anti-union violence and the reform of sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 541 of the Labour Code, and proactively proposed the following measures:

(a) the Government of Honduras should seek the collaboration and support of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Supreme Court of Justice so that they can give priority to cases of alleged anti-union violence that are the subject of complaints to the ILO, and provide a detailed report solely on these cases, with a view to clarifying the situation; and

(b) the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security should request ILO technical assistance for the establishment of a tripartite technical forum within the CES for the previous examination of possible complaints to the ILO, with a view to preventing social conflict in the county, and to facilitate compliance with the provisions commented on by the Committee in its 2018 conclusions on the case of Honduras.

With regard to the recommendations made by the COHEP to the CES, it is important to place emphasis on the tripartite commitment illustrated by:

(a) the establishment of the MEPCOIT, as noted by the Committee of Experts in its 2018 observations. This forum started operating in the month of September 2018, and once it had been established invited representatives of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Secretariat for Human Rights to be ex officio members of the Committee so that they can report on progress and submit reports on the cases covered by complaints to the ILO;

(b) among the first actions taken by the MEPCOIT, a framework of rules was proposed for its operation, which are still under discussion by the tripartite partners, and which was also communicated to the preparatory mission for the direct contacts mission, which visited Honduras from 23 to 26 October 2018. It was agreed that it was necessary to request ILO technical assistance to give effect to the harmonization of the Labour Code with the provisions of the Convention;

(c) as part of the efforts made by the MEPCOIT and the action taken as from 2019, three meetings were held with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in which information was provided on the progress achieved and reports were submitted on complaints of alleged anti-union violence which, in the view of the COHEP, represents significant progress in clarifying the cases denounced to the ILO.

The employers of Honduras have indicated on various occasions that they cannot comment individually on the cases of the 21 persons referred to in the report of the Committee of Experts, as it is the responsibility of the State of Honduras to address and resolve those cases through the public authorities and the judicial system. However, Honduran employers reiterate their firm commitment to guaranteeing full respect for freedom of association, and deplore any anti-union action that directly or indirectly jeopardizes the independence of the trade union movement, and the physical safety of trade union leaders.

It is important to indicate that Honduran employers have always been ready to participate and contribute to discussions of laws and regulations relating to economic and social subjects in the country, and particularly to contribute on labour matters. For example, between 1992 and 1995, private employers, represented by the COHEP, participated in tripartite discussions for the preparation of the Labour Code, with ILO assistance. On that occasion, the intention was to ensure the harmonization of the Labour Code with the ILO Conventions in force in the country. The employers supported those discussions and proposed reforms because they were comprehensive and, in addition to guaranteeing the security of investments, offered full guarantees of workers’ rights.

In this way, I wish to emphasize that Honduran employers have always been ready to participate in reform processes that lead to the strengthening of legal security in relation to compliance with international labour standards.

COHEP has publicly expressed its firm commitment to workers’ rights, in the sense of them being able to participate freely in organizations of their own choosing, with the quorum that they wish in each enterprise and institution, without any type of discrimination or restriction over and above those established voluntarily in their own statutes. For that reason, it expressed its agreement, support and readiness to give effect to the conclusions adopted by the Committee at the 107th Session of the Conference in relation to the reform of the following sections of the Labour Code:

– section 2, in relation to the exclusion of agricultural and stock-raising enterprises with ten or fewer workers from the application of the Labour Code;

– section 472, which prohibits the establishment of more than one trade union in the case of enterprise or first-level unions, in violation of the right to freedom of association and prohibiting trade union pluralism;

– section 475, which establishes the requirement of at least 30 workers to establish a trade union which, as indicated by the Committee of Experts, is too high a number and needs to be revised; and

– sections 510 and 541, which set out the requirements for being members of the executive bodies of trade unions, federations and confederations, and require Honduran nationality and being able to read and write, and to be engaged permanently in the enterprise.

This has been set out in official communications sent by COHEP this year to the Committee of Experts, as well as in the note communicated by COHEP to the direct contacts mission, in which it also asked to be provided with the conclusions and recommendations of the direct contacts mission as soon as possible, but which have not yet been provided.

Finally, following the official visit of the ILO direct contacts mission from 20 to 24 May this year, the tripartite partners concluded an agreement, entitled “Tripartite agreement seeking mechanisms for the correct and effective application of the Convention in Honduras”, in which agreement was reached on the following:

(1) the urgent creation of a commission on anti-union violence composed, on the one hand, of the authorities of the Secretariat for the General Coordination of the Government (SCGG), the Secretariat of State in the Human Rights Office, the Secretariat of State in the Labour and Social Security offices; and, on the other, by workers represented by the CGT, CTH and CUTH; and employers represented by the COHEP. The Committee will invite those responsible for justice in the country, including the Supreme Court of Justice and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to join. The Commission shall be established thirty days after the signature of the agreement, which was concluded on 24 May of this year, and should therefore be established shortly to give effect to the agreement;

(2) the partners undertake to engage in a broad process of discussion and tripartite consensus with a view to the harmonization of the labour legislation with the Convention, taking as a reference the conclusions adopted by the Committee at the 107th Session of the Conference; and

(3) strengthening the CES, in recognition of its key role in developing social dialogue; strengthening the MEPCOIT and approving its rules of procedure; and requesting ILO technical assistance where necessary, within two months of the signature of the tripartite agreement.

The Employers’ group considers it important to place emphasis on the case of Honduras as a case of progress, in which the various measures taken to give effect to the recommendations and conclusions of the ILO supervisory bodies demonstrate the commitment of the social partners to implementing the provisions of the Convention.

Finally, we reiterate that we do not understand, and therefore do not support, the criteria for the selection of cases that were taken into account this year by the Committee for the inclusion of Honduras in its list of cases. As we did last year, we recall that the right to strike is not regulated by the Convention, or by any other ILO Convention, and that there is therefore no legal basis for discussing the comments of the Committee of Experts on this subject, and we therefore hope that the conclusions on this case will not make reference to the right to strike.

In this regard, we recall the joint statement by the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, and of Governments (both dated 23 February 2015), with the latter statement indicating that “[t]he scope and conditions of this right are regulated at the national level”. In this regard, any request by the Committee of Experts for governments to align their law and practice with its own rules on the right to strike is not binding.

Worker member, Honduras – Freedom of association is a fundamental human right and, together with the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike, is essential for the existence of trade unionism in the world.

In recent years, trade union organization and collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, and in decentralized and local state institutions in Honduras, have suffered from restrictions and obstacles, resulting in: (1) the elimination of trade unions; (2) attempts to undermine employment stability; (3) massive anti-union dismissals; (4) the murder and persecution of trade union leaders (anti-union violence); (5) impunity and the absence of labour justice; (6) the removal of protection for workers’ organizations and the violation of their trade union autonomy; (7) the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of tripartite dialogue; (8) parallel unions and unfair control by certain organizations controlled by employers; and (9) precarious employment and subcontracting, which impede unionization (including temporary work on an hourly basis), with serious deficits in terms of labour inspection and administration in a context of growing vulnerability for fundamental rights at work.

The recently established MEPCOIT has up to now not achieved results as it is recent, and has not resolved any cases.

With reference to anti-union violence, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has done nothing to: formalize the desirable mutual cooperation to ensure that, in the design and implementation of investigations, full consideration is systematically given to the possible anti-union nature of the murders of members of trade union movements, the possible links that exist between the murders of members of the same union, and investigations covering both the perpetrators and instigators of such crimes. This often results in an obstacle for denunciations by victims as they are not considered credible and are not trusted.

There has been no progress in the adoption of measures to ensure that investigations are carried out promptly into murders and to determine those responsible, and to punish those guilty of such crimes. There are many deficiencies in the provision of rapid and effective protection to trade union leaders and members who are under threat. The climate of violence is unchanged and is preventing workers from being able to exercise their right to freedom of association free from fear of violence. For example, of the 14 murders of leaders and members of the trade union movement denounced to the Committee of Experts, which occurred between 2010 and 2016, in only one case has there so far been a conviction, which is currently under appeal.

It is also important to emphasize that, while certain leaders have had recourse to the protection system of the Ministry of Human Rights, victims indicate that these measures are not effective, prompt or expeditious. Over the past four years, over 109 cases of anti-union violence have been duly reported by the trade union movement.

Political will, transparency and the institutional commitment of the Government and the National Congress, and of employers’ organizations, are essential factors for the development of a legal reform which allows the true exercise of trade union freedoms and fundamental rights, which has not existed in practice.

In the current circumstances in the country, the political and institutional conditions do not exist to ensure that a draft reform of the Labour Code which enjoys tripartite consensus will be respected by the legislative authorities of the National Congress. What will certainly happen, as on other occasions which have been noted, is that the Congress will not respect tripartism and will make arbitrary changes under the influence of various biased interests to the proposals that are agreed through dialogue. The absence of effective social dialogue that achieves results means that there cannot be even a minimum of confidence in public institutions to leave such a vital reform process in their hands.

This is compounded by the fact that the new Labour Code, published on 10 May 2019, which will enter into force as of next November, provides for the first time for the establishment of criminal liability for legal entities and sets out the treatment of certain types of crimes, such as usurping office, offences such as public disorder and certain types of terrorism, among others. This rings a real alarm bell for the trade union movement as, under this law, unions with legal status will be considered criminally liable, that is liable to the imposition of penalties ranging from fines, the prohibition to negotiate collective contracts with state enterprises, the closure of their premises, and even including dissolution.

With regard to the recognition of trade unions, it is necessary to report that there are serious obstacles for trade unions when they seek their respective legal status, and we are capable of proving this, when the protection mechanisms consider this relevant.

With reference to collective bargaining, it is important to indicate that some employers take advantage of the time when lists of claims are submitted to present an employer’s counter list proposing to undermine and reduce rights that have been acquired. Despite this, the Secretariat of Labour accepts them, thereby failing in its duty of vigilance and as the guarantor of compliance with collective contracts, and compounds this by delaying the process of mediation and conciliation, for which appointments by the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security may take between six months and one year, with the result that collective bargaining may last for two or three years.

A platform has recently been created, which emerged in April 2019, for the defence of public education and health as an organizational response to the imminent privatization of public education and health in the country. The platform is ready to engage in dialogue to make specific proposals to resolve the situation, for which purpose it has proposed to the Government eight preconditions for dialogue, but they have not been accepted.

Human rights organizations denounce the occurrence during the protests of at least the following violations: four deaths in the context of the protests, three acts constituting torture, 33 persons injured, 36 persons beaten, 48 illegal detentions, 32 death threats, one person criminally charged for political reasons, five human rights defenders affected, 18 journalists affected, three communities placed under military control and 143 individual victims.

It should also be noted that four organizations that are members of the platform have been placed under surveillance and their leaders have been the victims of surveillance and persecution. We also take this opportunity to report that anti-riot police (“cobras”) entered the premises of the National Autonomous University of Honduras, and specifically the Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy, without a warrant, to fire shots and detain students, breaking through glass doors, injuring various students and intoxicating them with tear gas grenades.

Finally, we condemn the attitude of the Ministry of Labour which, from Geneva, declared illegal the strike by health and education workers against the privatization of these fundamental services for the population as a whole.

Employer member, Honduras – The Convention was ratified by the State of Honduras in 1956. The application of this Convention has been examined on four previous occasions by this Committee, in 1987, 1991, 1992 and 2018. Since 1998, the Committee of Experts has made over 20 observations on the application of the Convention. In the report in 2017, the case of Honduras was given a double footnote in view of the concern of the Committee of Experts at the alleged anti-union violence in the country, deriving from the denunciation to this Organization of alleged anti-union crimes and death threats between 2010 and 2014.

As very well indicated by the Employer spokesperson for this case, we employers in Honduras have indicated that we are against any crime or act of violence against trade union leaders of employers in relation to the exercise of the fundamental right of association and organization, and we therefore consider it to be of great importance to give effect on an urgent basis to the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence agreed upon in the so-called “Tripartite agreement seeking mechanisms for the correct and effective application of Convention No. 87 in Honduras”, which was concluded on the occasion of the direct contacts mission that visited Honduras from 20 to 24 May 2019.

Today, we are emphasizing the tripartite efforts that have been made to give effect to the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2018. We recognize the efforts of the social partners in Honduras to take action to guarantee the fundamental principles of the Convention.

The concern at the subject of violence is generalized throughout the country and has affected all sectors, for which reason we urge the Government of Honduras, and the various institutions in the justice system, to continue working to combat criminality, but in particular to adopt effective strategies to ensure that impunity in Honduras does not continue to be one of our principal problems, and accordingly to resolve expeditiously the cases of alleged anti-union violence that are today before this Committee.

As employers of Honduras, we have been responsible for proposing measures to give effect in practice to the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2018. We welcome the tripartite initiatives, such as the establishment of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO, with a view to allowing employer and worker representatives, through a national voluntary body, to seek solutions to the social problems that may arise in relation to the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining, for which we hope that the Government will receive the required ILO technical assistance.

Moreover, as the most representative employers’ organization in Honduras, we have been ready to engage in tripartite discussions of proposed legislative reforms to the Labour Code, in a context of consultation and dialogue in the CES. We are certain that this will be achieved, although it is necessary to ensure a full process of discussion.

As we explained in our comments on the reports provided in previous years, we believe it is important to note that the reform of the Labour Code must emphasize the following aspects:

– employers in Honduras believe in the principles of freedom of association and respect for the independence of workers and employers;

– we note with concern that the observations of the Committee of Experts refer to a number of legislative issues relating to the right to strike and, in that regard, we reiterate what was said by our spokesperson and the position of the Employers’ group, which considers that the right to strike is not regulated by the Convention and that there is therefore no basis for its discussion by this Committee; and

– the conclusions in this case should not refer to the right to strike and the Government is not required to follow the recommendations of the Committee of Experts in this matter, as it is the responsibility of each State to regulate this subject in its national legislation.

In this respect, we once again remind the Committee that the joint statement of the Employers’ group, the Workers’ group and the Government group of March 2015 indicates that the scope and conditions for the exercise of the right to strike are regulated at the national level.

In this regard, we consider that any request made by the Committee of Experts to the Government of Honduras and to any State relating to the right to strike is not binding and is outside the scope of the ILO supervisory bodies.

As employer representatives, we believe in the democratization of employers’ and workers’ organizations, in which the majority should take decisions in conditions of equality, freedom and independence, without any interference.

The Labour Code of Honduras was adopted in 1959 in a totally different context to that in which Honduran society currently lives and for this reason, since 1992, the employer representatives have taken the decision to support a general reform of the Labour Code, for which agreement is needed with the social partners. We are prepared to support not only reforms relating to freedom of association, but in general terms to promote and generate employment in Honduras, and to guarantee the economic right to the exercise of free enterprise, seeking the necessary guarantees for enterprise sustainability.

Finally, we believe that to achieve an effective reform and adaptation of Honduran labour legislation to the Conventions, the technical support of the ILO is necessary, through the Office for Central America, Haiti, Panama and the Dominican Republic, which should collaborate in strengthening dialogue through the CES, with the objective of ensuring the sound functioning of the MEPCOIT, and the Commission on Anti-Union Violence.

We trust that the report of the direct contacts mission will be issued as soon as possible and that it will be one more input to assist in giving effect to the conclusions of the Committee adopted in 2018. We consider this to be a case of progress, in view of the efforts made by the social partners in Honduras, which can undoubtedly be seen since June 2018 up to the present.

We therefore consider that the case of Honduras should not have been examined by this Committee this year. It is important and urgent for the criteria for the selection of country cases for examination to be revised as they must correspond to objective, clear and transparent criteria that reinforce the trust of all ILO constituents, based on technical aspects.

Government member, Brazil – I am making this intervention on behalf of the significant majority of the States of Latin America and the Caribbean. We warmly welcome the representatives of the Government of Honduras, who have provided updated information to the Committee, as set out in document C.App./D/Honduras-C.87, dated 29 May 2019.

In this respect, we thank the Government of Honduras for its report on the significant progress in giving effect to the conclusions of the Committee, adopted at the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference in 2018, relating to the application of the Convention. We see as a positive development the establishment of the MEPCOIT in September 2018, which is a tripartite body within the CES for the exchange of information on cases of trade union leaders and protection in relation to freedom of association, and which also has a mandate for the revision of the labour legislation.

We also welcome the initiative of the Government of Honduras in drawing up a new draft of pending amendments to the Labour Code, in conformity with the Convention, and the expectation that, through the MEPCOIT, the results and tripartite discussion of this new proposal will be accompanied by the technical assistance that has already been requested from the ILO Office and will be agreed through social dialogue.

We emphasize the commitment shown by the Government of Honduras and its agreement to receive the ILO direct contacts mission, which visited Tegucigalpa from 20 to 24 May 2019, and which was requested by an official request from the Government of Honduras in October 2018, beginning with the preparatory mission for the direct contacts mission this year.

In the context of the ILO direct contacts mission to Honduras, we welcome the recent signature of the tripartite agreement to seek mechanisms for the correct and effective application of the Convention, which has resulted in the establishment of a Commission on Anti-Union Violence with the principal objective of the adoption of tripartite mechanisms to combat anti-union violence, reforms to the labour legislation and the strengthening of the CES.

The direct contacts mission was able to note significant progress by the Government of Honduras at the time, and we therefore trust that the tripartite agreement will provide the basis for the road map that is to follow, and we encourage the Government of Honduras to continue renewing its efforts to make progress in this case.

We wish to reiterate very categorically our concern at the criteria for the selection of cases in this Committee. We consider it inappropriate to place a country so rapidly before the expectation of immediate and total results when a government has received an ILO direct contacts mission less than a month before and has recently made progress in a process for the tripartite resolution of the case, as has happened in the present case. Based on this observation, we reiterate that this system is far from adopting the best practices of the multilateral system. It is not transparent, impartial or objective. It is not tripartite in the home of tripartism. It does not promote social dialogue in the home of social dialogue.

Government member, Romania – I am speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, aligns itself with this statement. We attach great importance to the respect of human rights, including freedom of association of workers and employers and protection of the right to organize, and recognize the important role played by the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising international labour standards.

We wish to recall the commitment undertaken by Honduras under the “Trade and Sustainable Development” chapter of the EU Central America Association Agreement, to effectively implement in law and practice the fundamental ILO Conventions.

We note with deep regret that Honduras was already discussed last year in this Committee as a most serious case. As a result of the CAS discussion, the Government was requested to undertake a certain number of measures:

- ensure proper investigations into murders of trade unionists and prosecution of perpetrators, as well as provide adequate protection of trade union leaders and members;

- conduct investigations into acts of anti-union violence and prosecute the perpetrators;

- create an environment free of violence for workers and where they can exercise their right of freedom of association; finally

- amend certain provisions of the Labour Code which are not in conformity with the Convention in consultation with the social partners.

We note that the report welcomes the initiatives undertaken by the Government to tackle the general situation of violence and impunity. But there are still concerns over the lack of progress in investigating cases of violence and threats against trade unionists and in taking specific actions focusing on anti-union violence. Moreover, despite repeated requests from this Committee, there has not been any progress in amending the Labour Code.

We also express deep concern over recent acts of repression of strikes, as well as threats and acts of violence against trade unionists, including International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) allegations of a violent police crackdown that ended a strike organized by workers of a transnational agriculture enterprise, leading to the torture of several trade union members and 34 arrest warrants.

We welcome the ILO direct contacts mission recently held in the country and that a tripartite agreement could be reached on this occasion. We expect that this agreement will be swiftly implemented, including the setting up of the Commission on violence against trade unions.

We would like to recall that freedom of association and collective bargaining is not only a right, but also a critical tool to ensure social stability and economic development in a country as well as to resolve economic and social disputes. We therefore reiterate our requests made to the Government last year:

First, ensure that proper investigation and prosecutions of perpetrators and instigators of crimes against trade unionists are carried out promptly. As trade union representatives constitute a group vulnerable to violence, we also request the Government to take measures so as to ensure that this group is duly protected. Fighting impunity should remain a priority of the Government. Strengthening and ensuring impartiality of national police and judicial institutions is critical to achieve this goal.

Second, amend the Labour Code in consultation with social partners and in particular the restrictions to the right to establish a trade union regarding: (i) prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise; (ii) requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union; (iii) nationality requirement for officers of a trade union; and (iv) exclusion of workers’ organizations in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises not permanently employing more than ten workers.

Third, the Labour Code should also be amended with regard to the right to organize. We urge the Government to ensure that the right to strike is respected for all workers.

We call on the Government to submit a draft bill on these two aspects to the Congress shortly. We encourage Honduras to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this process.

We urge the Government to ensure that the right of peaceful strike is respected for all workers in practice. In this regard, we request the Government to ensure that the application of new amendments of the Penal Code does not restrict the right of trade unions to strike and protest in a peaceful manner.

We acknowledge that Honduras is currently going through a complex and challenging social, economic and political situation. We also take note that during some strikes, serious violence erupted. Therefore, we call on all parties in the country to facilitate national dialogue in a constructive spirit. We will continue to monitor closely the situation in Honduras and to support the Government in its efforts to comply with ILO Conventions.

Employer member, Spain – In contrast with the other follow-up cases examined by this Committee, the case of Honduras that we are examining concerning compliance with the Convention demonstrates the utility of the ILO supervisory machinery.

As a result of the conclusions adopted last year by the Committee, the MEPCOIT was established in the month of August last year as a tripartite body responsible for facilitating dialogue so that the parties involved can resolve their labour differences derived from failure to comply with ILO Conventions.

This tripartite body promoted by the CES has been entrusted with the important task of commencing the work of the harmonization of the Labour Code with Convention No. 87 and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), specifically through the amendment of sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 551, thereby giving effect to the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts.

In addition, as a result of the direct contacts mission which visited the Central American country in May this year, in accordance with one of the recommendations of the Committee on the Application of Standards, an agreement was signed establishing the basis for work on the reform of the Labour Code, while at the same time a body was established with the dual objective of receiving reports on anti-union violence and following up court cases, in coordination with the Government of Honduras.

This is a case of progress to which the COHEP is contributing significantly through its full support for the process of open tripartite consultations to give effect to the conclusions of the Committee, and its full involvement in the work for the reform of the Labour Code and to shed light on acts of anti-union violence.

In light of the above, we encourage the Committee to continue the support provided to the Government of Honduras, and to employers and workers in their efforts to give effect to the conclusions of the Committee.

Worker member, Spain – I would like to begin by saying that, as a founder organization of the ILO, we are alarmed by the questioning and the constant attacks over the past few days in this room on the standards supervisory system and against the Committee of Experts.

In this regard, international society and the workers are observing with concern and anxiety the continuation of violence in Honduras, the continued police repression of trade union demonstrations, including through torture, and the threats against and murder of trade union members, in violation of public liberties in general and trade union rights in particular.

This context of institutionalized anti-union violence which is occurring throughout the country is particularly crude in the African palm oil sector, of which Honduras is the eighth biggest world producer, and which is sold to major food multinationals and European biofuel companies, and which are therefore also responsible for this situation and deserving of the most severe criticism.

Men and women workers in the African palm oil sector receive indecent wages, have to handle toxic herbicides and are exposed to serious injury. And when they join a union to fight against these precarious conditions, injustice and inequality, they are seriously repressed.

The same happens to the trade unions which represent men and women palm oil plantation workers. Their members and trade union leaders are forced into unjust and arbitrary court cases; they are placed under surveillance, threatened and persecuted; they are repeatedly harassed, illegally detained, attacked, disappeared and even murdered.

The army, the police, the security guards of property owners and paramilitary groups are responsible for this terror campaign which:

– targets men and women workers, preventing their membership of unions and dissuading them from lodging complaints; and

– prevents trade union organization in plantations, repressing the establishment and development of unions and undermining unionized labour.

The Government of Honduras, in the regions where palm oil is grown industrially, has not taken appropriate specific and effective measures to protect workers who join a union, to investigate anti-union threats and violence, or to protect the safety of trade unionists and their families. But measures have been taken to recognize unions established and controlled by enterprises.

The latest information provided by the Government of Honduras illustrates its low level of interest in complying immediately and effectively with the provisions of the Convention and addressing the serious problem of the violation of human rights through intimidation, violence and the murder of men and women trade union members throughout the country, and particularly those who defend palm oil workers. This lack of action and indifference of the Government of Honduras is deserving of the most severe criticism and the highest penalty that the Committee can apply.

Finally, I wish to reiterate our call for an end to the attacks on the standards supervisory system, which guarantees the fundamental principles of this Organization.

Employer member, Chile – This case of Honduras is of interest as it relates to a fundamental subject for this Organization, as it concerns the subject of freedom of association, set out in the Convention.

Last year, the Committee called on the Government of Honduras to make urgent efforts to investigate all acts of violence which had threatened the life and safety of many union leaders (over 60, including 13 murders without convictions since 2014), and to provide rapid and effective protection measures for all leaders who were at risk.

The existing information shows that these workers have not only suffered high levels of insecurity, inequality and poverty, but also extraordinary levels of anti-union violence.

We recall that this Committee informed the Government of the need to amend certain provisions of the law to eliminate various restrictions on freedom of association and to bring the 1959 Labour Code into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

It should be emphasized that Honduran employers have stated that they believe in the principle of the right to organize and the democratization of workers’ organizations, and the need to reform the Labour Code, which has become outdated, with the objective of promoting and generating employment in the country.

Indeed, solid and sustainable labour relations, and social dialogue carried out in conditions of confidence and security, are one of the key factors for the sustainable development of an economy.

We note with concern that, despite the efforts of the Government to combat violence, the action taken still appears to be inadequate, and the situation continues to be very serious. Impunity is a serious problem and acts as a dangerous incentive for violence and insecurity. The Government should increase the human and material resources necessary to guarantee the life and safety of the population.

In light of the above, we respectfully request the Government of Honduras, without delay, to accelerate the processes of the investigation of acts of anti-union violence so that they can be completed and lead to those responsible being brought to justice and convicted.

We also respectfully urge the Government to proceed with the reform of the Labour Code, not only to bring it into conformity with the provisions of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, but also to include the new forms of work that are being promoted by current development trends.

Government member, India – We thank the delegation of the Government of Honduras for providing the latest comprehensive update on this issue. India appreciates the political will and commitment of the Government of Honduras to fulfil its international labour obligations, including those related to the Convention.

We take positive note of the steps being taken by the Government of Honduras, including the response to the observations of the Committee of Experts, for creating a conducive environment and establishing institutional mechanisms for social dialogue and appropriate working arrangements with the judicial authority, where necessary.

The following measures of the Government of Honduras are noteworthy: firstly, the national protection system to provide prompt and effective protection to all trade union leaders and members in a situational risk. Secondly, the efforts of the Government through social dialogue and tripartite collaboration, to stem anti-union violence, strengthen the capacity of the social partners, and undertake labour court reforms to achieve conformity, with the ratified ILO Conventions, including the Convention. Thirdly, the willingness of the Government to seek technical assistance of, and constructively work with, the ILO.

We encourage the social partners in Honduras to continue to cooperate and collaborate with the Government to carry the process forward and to ensure its success. In fulfilling its labour related obligations, we request the ILO and its constituents to fully support and assist the Government of Honduras. We take this opportunity to wish the Government of Honduras all success in its endeavours.

Employer member, El Salvador – The Convention is undoubtedly fundamental for harmonious labour relations in any country. The recognition and exercise of the right of freedom of association by workers and employers makes it possible to establish and maintain strong social organizations that are capable of engaging in dialogue and concluding sustainable agreements.

We listened carefully to the information provided by the Government of Honduras and the view of the workers and employers in this country. We support the view expressed by the Employer representative of Honduras. We are examining a case in which progress has been made, of which we wish to emphasize the following aspects. First, we welcome the establishment in 2018 of the MEPCOIT, with the objective of providing the country with a national body to avoid this type of complaint and strengthen dialogue on subjects related to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The positive experience of this type of body in other countries, such as Colombia, makes us think that Honduras has taken a good decision. Second, it is good news that the Government has submitted to Congress reforms of various legislative texts to adapt its legislation to the conclusions adopted by the Committee last year. Although it is a step in the right direction, we hope that the Government, together with the social partners, will continue to make efforts for its approval. Third, we understand that the report of the recent direct contacts mission is still not available, and we hope that its recommendations will help the Government of Honduras to take the right decisions.

In this case, reference has been made to the deaths of persons. Life is what is most valuable to all of us and therefore, irrespective of the causes of these crimes, the least that we can do is to respectfully request the Government of Honduras to investigate these deaths and punish those responsible. Impunity cannot and must not be allowed in our countries.

We trust that a fraternal country, such as Honduras, under the leadership of its Government, will have the capacity to resolve and comply in full with the provisions of the Convention and the conclusions adopted by the Committee last year, as well as those agreed upon this year, and the recommendations of the direct contacts mission.

Worker member, United States – Canadian workers join our statement. Our comments focus on the failure of Honduras to comply in practice with the Convention in spite of long documented violations by employers in the maquila sector.

With Honduran unions, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) filed a complaint seeking investigation of abuses of labour rights under the Central American Free Trade Agreement in 2012.

The agreement requires Honduras to comply with its national laws and the ILO standards that this Committee supervises, specifically the agreement requires Honduras and the United States to respect “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.” Unfortunately, the US Government took nearly three years to respond, but they did agree that the overwhelming majority of allegations of violations were true. While the US and Honduran Governments produced a plan to monitor and take action regarding violations, most specific violations confirmed by the US Government response to the complaint continue in impunity. These failures are especially acute in key export sectors. In the maquila sector, we will focus on the auto-parts industry, a major traded global supply chain.

In this sector, workers report ongoing anti-union practices, anti-union dismissals and slow and ineffective proceedings dealing with complaints of these practices and non-compliance with court orders to reinstate trade unionists for the last ten years. As the cases in the CAFTA petition and follow-up demonstrate, the same violations and impunity continue to today with illegal repression of workers attempting to claim these rights.

An auto-parts manufacturer where approximately 4,000 workers produce for export, has steadfastly refused to recognize the union for at least eight years even though the workers legally formed their union and presented proposals in compliance with the law in 2011. Seven times, this employer has fired elected workplace leaders. Rather than respond to the duly presented union registration and bargaining proposal, the employer refused to receive notice of the union’s registration and illegally fired all the original elected leaders. In the following years, workers reorganized, held elections and six more times the company has violated the law and fired each new set of leaders. The Government has consistently not enforced laws to reinstate these fired union leaders. After years of refusing entry to the workplace by inspectors, only after the US Government report confirmed workers’ allegations, the company finally allowed inspectors into the workplace. Still, the employer has steadfastly refused to pay any of the fines levied or recognize the legally registered union. Meanwhile, the employer has repeatedly tried to set up company-dominated unions and threatened both workers and the Government that the company would close the plant because of the existence of the union.

The intransigence of this employer, Kyunshin–Lear, a joint venture between Korean and US companies in the sector, has been documented for over eight years but the Government has failed to enforce national laws or compliance with the ILO Conventions. Yet Honduras and the company continue to enjoy trade benefits. During the ILO mission last month that resulted from last year’s case in this Committee, a tripartite committee was created to discuss the case. It may meet for the first time in July, but there is little reason to expect this latest round of promises to yield results. Meanwhile the company, its buyers in auto assembly and the Government of Honduras receive the benefits of the trade agreement. We thank the Committee of experts for its continued focus on the case that does not represent progress but paralysis.

Government member, Nicaragua – My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished delegation of Brazil on behalf of the vast majority of Latin America and Caribbean States. We also thank the delegation of Honduras for the presentation of its progress report.

We welcome the consultations held by the Government with the social partners and the establishment of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes in September last year. We emphasize the efforts made by the Government and its readiness to work with the ILO. We encourage the Organization to continue working with the Government and providing all the cooperation and technical assistance necessary to achieve tangible progress in the country. We take positive note of the tripartite agreement signed in Honduras and trust that this agreement will provide the fundamental basis for a road map to be followed. We encourage the Government to continue renewing its efforts to make progress in this case. We urge the Government, our sister country Honduras, to continue making all possible efforts for the effective and comprehensive implementation of the Convention.

Employer member, Costa Rica – On behalf of the employers of Costa Rica, I wish to support the intervention made by the Employer representative of Honduras, particularly on the following points:

- The criteria that the Committee takes into account for the selection of the cases to be discussed at the International Labour Conference must be objective, clear and transparent. This will give security to the process and ensure that the social partners trust the supervisory bodies of the Organization. We believe that this case should not have been examined by this Committee, as it is a case of progress, in which there is evidence of progress in relation to the 2018 conclusions.

- While freedom of association is essential because it allows groups to be established to pursue a common purpose, it is important to emphasize that no right is higher than any other. All rights are subject to restrictions and must be exercised in an environment of mutual respect. We therefore agree with the position of the employers of Honduras and support their proactive action to ensure compliance with the Convention.

- We would like the Committee to take into account the efforts made by the parties in Honduras to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts.

- The employers of Honduras have shown an attitude of collaboration and have proposed solutions in favour of workers’ rights and legal security with a view to complying with international labour standards. There is a commitment to defend freedom of association and strengthen the key mechanisms for the development of social dialogue.

- Lastly, I would like to emphasize, in the same way as the Employer representative of Honduras, that the Committee of Experts continues to refer to and to make interpretations of the right to strike despite the fact that it is not explicitly set out in any ILO Conventions. Every country is sovereign in regulating this right, which we do not dismiss, but which we believe must be regulated in the most appropriate manner in accordance with the national context. As a result, we call for the conclusions not to include any reference to the right to strike.

Worker member, Guatemala – The workers of Nicaragua align themselves with our statement. We are concerned that, despite the fact that the Committee has for many years been asking the Government to take measures to amend the Labour Code, and despite the many requests and observations made by the Committee of Experts, these amendments have not been made.

The prohibition on more than one trade union in a single enterprise is not in accordance with freedom of association. It is different when the legislation recognizes a trade union as the most representative, as this has been declared legitimate by the Committee on Freedom of Association. However, the prohibition referred to above is incompatible with the Convention and undermines the right to organize.

The ILO supervisory bodies have commented repeatedly on the requirement for more than 30 workers to establish a trade union. Paragraph 285 of the Digest of Decisions of 2006 provides that: “Even though the minimum number of 30 workers would be acceptable in the case of sectoral trade unions, this minimum number should be reduced in the case of works councils so as not to hinder the establishment of such bodies, particularly when it is taken into account that the country has a very large proportion of small enterprises and that the trade union structure is based on enterprise unions.”

Another factor is the requirement to be of Honduran nationality to hold trade union office, which amounts to blatant discrimination on grounds of nationality. Not only is it in violation of the Convention, but also of other international instruments ratified by Honduras. The requirement to belong to the corresponding occupation has been found to be discriminatory by the supervisory bodies, and is in any case a matter to be regulated by trade union statutes, not the law. Similarly, the requirement to be able to read and write constitutes discrimination on grounds of illiteracy, which is not only in violation of the Convention, but also of rules on discrimination and equal treatment.

These observations have been made repeatedly for many years, yet the Government has failed to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the observations of this Committee. No progress at all has been made in taking measures to guarantee that reforms are adopted promptly. We strongly believe that the Government is permanently putting off the amendments as a means of reaffirming its clear anti-trade union policy.

We must recall that, as in the case of Guatemala, this Committee asked the Government of Honduras in 2018 to investigate the murders of trade union leaders, punish those responsible, provide protection to trade union leaders and members, and investigate acts of anti-trade union violence.

As a result, we call on the government authorities to ensure that these conclusions and recommendations are given effect in an expeditious, serious and responsible manner in order to safeguard the right to life, and thereby guarantee that freedom of association and collective bargaining can be exercised freely in full and effective compliance with the Convention.

Government member, Panama – Panama aligns itself with the statement made by GRULAC on behalf of a significant majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

We thank the distinguished delegate of the Government of Honduras, Mario Villanueva, for the valuable information provided. I would like to highlight some fundamental points in relation to this case which, in the view of Panama, is a case that is in the interests not only of the Government, but also of the Employers’ and Workers’ groups, through the adoption of specific measures that, most importantly, progressively give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, as well as the observations of the most representative organizations of the social partners, for the proper implementation of the Convention.

I raise the following question. Already last week, many of those here who made interventions in the Committee expressed doubt and a reflection. Was it not important for this Committee, on the occasion of the ILO’s Centenary, to be open and innovative, thereby sending a clear message to the world of work and showing through our efforts, only of Governments, but also as a result of tripartism, the important role played by the supervisory bodies and the valuable assistance provided to countries by the Office, as well as by presenting specific cases of positive progress in the application of international labour standards?

Honduras is a case with very positive aspects, but in which action is still required. We are certain that appropriate follow-up measures are being taken. Let us remember one thing: the longest journeys begin with a single step.

Indeed, there is proof of many steps being taken: the establishment of the MEPCOIT, the draft labour reforms to ensure compliance with the Convention and the recent direct contacts mission which, proudly for my country, included the participation of Dr Rolando Murgas Torraza, chair of the tripartite round tables in our country. These steps show that national bodies are becoming increasingly more useful and valuable in resolving conflicts and addressing labour matters, so that they do not have to be examined by this Committee.

There are many cases of progress in Latin America of more effective application and the harmonization of labour systems with the standards set out in international labour instruments.

Employer member, Guatemala – This case was discussed extensively at our meeting last year. The conclusions referred to two fundamental subjects: acts of violence that could be of an anti-trade union nature, and the failure to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention.

With regard to the first subject, we know that countries in our region are facing a common climate of violence which, unfortunately, affects the whole population, including workers and employers. We therefore support the calls for the Government to thoroughly investigate each and every one of the cases of violence affecting workers.

In this regard, we congratulate the social partners and the Government for the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence. We hope that the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the courts will give their full support to this Commission and trust that the results of these efforts will soon be visible.

We believe that the establishment of the MEPCOIT within the CES is also a very important step in the right direction for the management of labour disputes in Honduras. We welcome this tripartite effort. We are convinced that these types of solutions generate trust between the parties and strengthen social dialogue. All of the above lays the groundwork for good governance.

With regard to the requested legislative reforms, we look favourably upon tripartite consultations as a means of making progress with the proposed amendments on the issues identified by the Committee of Experts in its report. We call on the social partners of Honduras to enter into dialogue without preconceived ideas or conditioning, and with the intention of reaching consensus. We are certain that our colleagues from COHEP will adopt this approach, as they have done so far. In any case, if consensus is not possible, and good faith consultations cannot make progress, the Government will have to take the necessary decisions and send draft legislation to the legislature.

The specific action taken by the Government to resolve the problems highlighted by the Committee of Experts on the basis of social dialogue are an indication that progress has been made. This should be highlighted in the conclusions of this case.

Worker member, Argentina – On behalf of the Confederation of Workers of Argentina (CTA Autonomous), we wish to say that the right to strike is a dynamic aspect of freedom of association and, together with collective bargaining, is a fundamental right set out in the 1998 Declaration. Second- and third-level trade unions cannot be deprived of this right because, not only is that in violation of the Convention, but it also prevents workers from formulating their programmes and organizing their activities as they deem appropriate.

For example, the Committee on Freedom of Association, in Cases Nos 2528, 2562 and 2566, recognized the right to strike as a legitimate right to which workers and their organizations may have recourse to defend their economic and social rights.

The prohibition on strikes called by federations and confederations is not compatible with the Convention. With regard to the requirement for a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union to call a strike (sections 495 and 562 of the Labour Code), it should be recalled that the imposition of special majorities or any type of requirement imposed by law to limit or interfere in the ability of trade unions to freely determine and exercise this fundamental right must be understood as a violation of the Convention, as it restricts their right to organize their programmes, as set out in Cases Nos 2698 and 2988 of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

In relation to the majority required by law to call a strike, namely two-thirds of the total membership, the Conference Committee recalled the comments of the Committee of Experts that this legal provision is a form of intervention by the public authorities in trade union activities which restricts the rights of these organizations.

Another issue is the requirement for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558). The imposition of excessive time limits on the requirement to give notice to the authorities is in violation of the Convention, as it prevents the free exercise of a fundamental right.

With regard to referral to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years) in relation to collective disputes in public services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826), the Committee on Freedom of Association has repeatedly stated that compulsory arbitration undermines the right to strike in the sense that it impedes the free exercise of that right. It also undermines the right to organize by preventing unions from organizing their activities in full freedom and can only be justified in the public service in essential services.

The Committee recalled in its previous comments that it regretted the fact that the country had not consolidated the progress made in 2014 with regard to the discussion and adoption of draft legislation to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention.

Lastly, we therefore call for a commission of inquiry to prepare a report on violations of human rights, the right to life, the right to safety and freedom of association in their various forms.

Government member, Canada – Canada thanks the Government of Honduras for the information provided today, as well as the detailed information provided in writing to the Committee before the start of today’s discussion. Canada has expressed its deep concerns about ongoing violations of the Convention in Honduras during several previous sittings of this Committee. We regret that we are doing so again this year.

We recognize that the Government of Honduras has made efforts over the past year to address the issues of concern previously discussed in this Committee. In particular, we welcome the efforts to strengthen institutional capacity to deal with violent crime, including increased investments in the criminal investigation police, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judiciary. Canada also welcomes the recent resumption of tripartite consultations on labour law reforms, and is pleased that an ILO direct contacts mission was successfully completed in recent weeks.

While acknowledging that some progress has been made, it is evident that much more remains to be done. Serious problems still exist in Honduras, including pervasive violence against trade unionists and minimal progress on investigating anti-union crimes and bringing perpetrators to justice. Freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind, and it is for governments to ensure that these principles are respected.

Canada therefore urges the Government of Honduras to further intensify efforts to: investigate all acts of violence against trade unionists, identify those responsible, and ensure perpetrators and instigators are brought to justice in accordance with the rule of law and due process; ensure prompt and coordinated protection to at-risk trade union leaders and members; and protect the right of persons to engage in peaceful protest. We also urge the Government to move forward, without delay, with necessary labour law reforms identified by the Committee of Experts, ensuring that all reforms are consistent with international labour standards and the result of genuine and effective tripartite dialogue. Finally, we encourage the Government to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

Canada sincerely hopes that the Government’s next report to the Committee of Experts will highlight positive developments in all these aspects, and we wish the Government success as it moves forward.

Employer member, Panama – The case of Honduras in relation to this Convention is a case that is progressing.

At the 107th Session of the International Labour Conference, the Committee on the Application of Standards examined the same case and there was a broad discussion concerning violations of the Convention, which focused on two subjects: anti-union violence, in which emphasis was placed on 22 cases of alleged anti-union violence; and the need to reform the labour legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

In the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards, a direct contacts mission was proposed, which visited Honduras prior to the 108th Session of the Conference, that is this Conference.

Before, during and since the direct contacts mission, private enterprise in Honduras has affirmed its recognition that social peace is the greatest guarantee for development and investment, for which reason it refutes violence in any form. It is totally in agreement with the reform of the labour legislation, and particularly sections 2, 472, 475, 510 and 541, based on an exercise of concerted tripartite dialogue and, if necessary, a reform of the Labour Code to make the country more competitive and productive.

In September 2018, the MEPCOIT was established as a tripartite dialogue mechanism, and in the MEPCOIT information was provided on the cases of alleged anti-union violence, clarifying those which were already in the judicial system, those on which there had been no action of any type by the workers, and those that are pending (there were 14 awaiting judicial action).

As a result of the mission, an agreement was signed which was read out by the Government and by the representative of the Employers.

However, it is totally clear that this is a case of progress in which the necessary measures have been taken, and that incentives are still required to promote dialogue. In this sense, it must therefore be considered a case of progress.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – As some of you may recall, in 2015, the CAS received a report entitled, Giving a voice to rural workers which documented “dismal living and working conditions in the rural sector”. The report identified obstacles to the establishment, growth and functioning of rural workers’ organizations, including the severe imbalance of power between workers and employers, which renders many workers vulnerable and marginalized, the particular disadvantage experienced by women, and insanitary, unstable and isolated living conditions. These are precisely the conditions faced by our affiliate STAS in Honduras which, for several years, has been struggling to win the right to represent women, men and workers so that they can organize and bargain to improve their living and working conditions. Deficiencies in Honduran labour law which does not conform to Conventions Nos 87 and 98 have posed systematic obstacles to the establishment and functioning of STAS whose situation is emblematic of the difficulties facing rural workers in Honduras generally.

Additionally, workers struggled to exercise their right against a background of violence, impunity which has been well documented. STAS has also experienced similar problems in the palm oil sector where violations of fundamental rights are routine.

We call on the Government of Honduras to lift any obstacles to functioning of the trade union STAS and registration of its subsections.

Worker member, Colombia – On behalf of the workers of Colombia, we wish to intervene in this Committee with reference to the new call made to Honduras concerning its systematic failure to comply with the Convention, on the basis of the facts examined by the Committee of Experts and this Committee in recent years, which are indicators of the persistence in Honduras of a grave social crisis that is directly affecting the trade union movement, which is the victim of all types of threats, abductions and even murders, with the health and education sectors being especially affected.

The ILO supervisory bodies have repeatedly drawn the Government’s attention to the continued attacks, the lack of effective protection for trade unionists and the minimum level of action by the judicial system. Shamefully, this situation still persists in my country.

As freedom of association is the primary international labour principle set out in the treaty that established the ILO, it is devastating that, as we celebrate its 100 years of existence, there are countries such as Honduras in which, since 2011, several trade unionists have lost their lives through violence, hundreds have been threatened for being trade unionists or have been detained, as also happens in our country. In addition to the gravity of the violations of the right to life and to safety suffered by trade union and women leaders, what is remarkable in Honduras is that in a certain manner this situation persists with the connivance of the Government due to the failure to investigate the related crimes, the refusal to recognize their anti-union nature and the failure to impose exemplary sentences. All of these passive attitudes have their roots in State complicity to allow the space for the continuation of crimes against trade union leaders. We are in an authoritative position to speak of this, as it continues to be very common in our country.

The Government of Honduras is showing a mask of false respect for the ILO, but has been ignoring for years the recommendations of its supervisory bodies which are united in setting out an agenda of legislative reforms that would in practice involve a substantial change in the situation of non-compliance with the Convention. The views expressed by the supervisory bodies, which are the expression of the authority vested in them by the constituents, must be accorded the greatest respect by governments and national public authorities, which represent the member States in this Organization, and on this we are in agreement with the Employers.

Worker member, Uruguay – I am speaking on behalf of the Workers’ National Convention of Uruguay (PIT-CNT). We will be referring to the point entitled legislative issues in the report of the Committee of Experts relating to the Convention and the legislation of Honduras.

The issue here is the non-conformity of the domestic legislation with the Convention. A prerequisite in this regard is that, in accordance with article 19, paragraph 8, of the Constitution of the ILO, in no case shall the adoption of any Convention by the Conference, or the ratification of any Convention by any Member, be deemed to affect any law, award, custom or agreement which ensures more favourable conditions to the workers concerned than those provided for in the Convention.

On the contrary, this must be interpreted as meaning that no domestic provision, irrespective of its rank or hierarchy, may affect a more favourable international labour Convention, especially when the Convention is included in the list of fundamental Conventions.

Based on this specification, it is necessary to pass on to what we and the Honduran trade unions consider to be a violation of the Convention, which is related to: the legislative provisions that exclude certain workers from trade union rights and guarantees, point (a); the restriction of freedom of association, points (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f); compulsory arbitration, point (e); the power of the competent ministry to end disputes in oil industry services, point (g); and the requirement of government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension of work in public services, point (h), as indicated in the report of the Committee of Experts, page 91. These legal provisions are in violation of the principles of trade union autonomy and activities set out in the Convention, and particularly in Articles 2, 3 and 6. Article 2 provides that workers shall have the right to establish organizations without previous authorization.

In short, the Government of Honduras is requested to set in motion immediately and without further ado the operation of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO, a tripartite body, with a view to the adoption of the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with the Convention. And, in particular, it is requested to take the necessary action to guarantee the full exercise of the rights inherent in freedom of association, and to provide effective protection for the life and safety of trade unionists.

Finally, this is not a question of competitivity or productivity. It is a matter of dignity. Trade union rights are inherent in human rights, and it is therefore a question of human dignity, without which it is not possible to speak of either democracy or freedom of association.

Government representative – The Government of Honduras has taken due note of each and every comment made in our Organization today. In particular, we refer to the indication by the Committee that the MEPCOIT is used to establish an information channel between the authorities and the trade union movement in relation to anti-union violence. In this respect, it should be noted that all the necessary measures have been taken so that:

(a) All the competent authorities, and particularly the police force, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judicial authorities address in a coordinated manner and as a matter of priority the violence affecting members of the trade union movement.

(b) The Public Prosecutor’s Office has been requested, in the design and development of investigations, to take fully and systematically into consideration the possible anti-union nature of the murders of members of the trade union movement, the possible links existing between murders of members of the same trade union, and to investigate both the perpetrators and instigators of such acts.

(c) Through the MEPCOIT, the exchange of information is being strengthened between the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the trade union movement.

(d) By tripartite agreement, a Commission on Anti-Union Violence is being established as a channel for direct communication between workers and the state authorities, and we hope for the determined participation of workers in this body.

(e) Budgetary resources are being allocated for both investigations into acts of anti-union violence and protection schemes for members of the trade union movement.

Chairperson, with reference to the pending reforms of the Labour Code, within the framework of the Economic and Social Council (CES) and on the basis of the relevant comments of the ILO supervisory bodies, the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security (STSS), the representatives of employers through the COHEP, and workers’ representatives, through the CGT, CTH and CUTH, have agreed to engage in a broad process of discussion and tripartite consensus which, with the existence of appropriate conditions, will allow the harmonization of the labour legislation with the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Government encourages employers and workers to accredit their representatives as rapidly as possible to the Commission on Anti-Union Violence established through the tripartite agreement. The Government awaits with optimism the conclusions and recommendations of the direct contacts mission so as to give effect to them within the framework of social dialogue and tripartism.

Finally, Honduras continues to be a State that respects human rights. In this respect, we reaffirm that respect for and the protection and promotion of human rights are central to all State action. We are participants in common causes with the ILO, as we share values and interests with a view to making a significant contribution to the achievement of the international objectives of social justice with equity and a better working environment.

Employer members – We wish to thank the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Honduras for the information provided, and the information provided by the Workers’ group, which we have listened to with great attention and noted.

Clearly, as a group, we also empathize with the difficulties experienced in Honduras in relation to insecurity and violence, which in practice affect us all as workers, employers and the whole population of Honduras. This would appear to be a subject that is important for everyone and we hope that greater efforts will be made to ensure greater security, more tranquillity and more social peace.

With regard to trade union rights and public liberties, the Government’s efforts are welcome to reinforce the institutions of public security so that they can combat criminality in Honduras.

We recognize that substantial efforts have been made, but it is necessary to go further by seeking the help of those operating in the judicial system to resolve the cases that have been denounced to the ILO, to facilitate investigations and bring those responsible to justice, with the imposition of the respective penalties.

With reference to Article 2 et seq. of the Convention respecting the establishment, independence and activities of trade unions, it is fundamental to reform the Labour Code, not only to bring it into conformity with the Convention, but also to new forms of work.

The pluralistic efforts to conclude agreements that have been made by all the social partners in Honduras through social dialogue need to be recognized by the Committee, and will certainly be noted and explained in the report of the direct contacts mission that recently visited Honduras.

We urge the Government of Honduras without delay to proceed with the establishment of the Commission on Anti-Union Violence so that information can be sought through it on the cases that are currently being investigated, so as to determine and clarify the causes and motives of the cases denounced here, with the workers and employers of Honduras being kept duly informed.

We also urge the Government of Honduras without delay to request ILO technical assistance with a view to the approval of the rules of procedure of the MEPCOIT and, through this body, to engage in the necessary consultations for the adoption of the pending modifications to the Labour Code so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the ILO Convention.

We recognize that tripartite dialogue must be carried out in good faith and with a view to reaching agreement, although without necessarily achieving consensus. We therefore urge both the representatives of workers and those of the Government to honour public tripartite pronouncements and, through social dialogue, to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, particularly in relation to the adoption of modifications to the Labour Code so that its provisions are brought into conformity with the Convention.

At the same time, we call on the Committee to consider the present case as a case of progress in light of the existence of significant progress giving effect to the conclusions adopted by this Committee in 2018, taking into consideration the fact that we still do not have the report of the direct contacts mission which recently visited Honduras.

With regard to the possible doubts that may be entertained by Honduran trade unions concerning potential legislative reforms, these can only be overcome though dialogue with trade union leaders. Such dialogue can continue to be strengthened with the technical collaboration of the ILO and the observations of the ILO supervisory bodies.

We reiterate, as Employer representatives, that sincere and transparent dialogue is the tool for the achievement of social peace, when the parties think of the common good and act in good faith.

Finally, in the ILO’s Centenary year, we have the opportunity to do things differently to achieve better results. Over and above any mistrust that may be felt concerning the outcome of legislative debates, it is fundamental to work on agreements with the social partners in an attempt to address the interests that we validly represent.

Worker members – With reference to the comments made by various Employer members concerning the inclusion of Honduras on the list of individual cases, it is necessary to recall that the list was decided upon by agreement. The Employers agreed that this discussion should be held on Honduras, and we therefore consider that such comments are, to say the least, inappropriate. We repeat that the list is agreed upon by the Workers and Employers.

Moreover, secondly, although we did not refer to the right to strike in our initial remarks, it would appear that it is necessary for the Employers’ group to raise the issue and comment on it. We are therefore bound, as the Workers’ group, to indicate and confirm once again that our position on the right to strike remains firm. The right to strike is fully contained in the Convention and the comments of the Committee of Experts on strikes are therefore absolutely appropriate. The Committee of Experts must therefore continue to examine all matters relating to freedom of association and the right to strike.

For many years, we have witnessed constant and severe violations of trade union rights in Honduras. Serious situations exist, and we call on the Government to resolve them. The scourge of corruption in the public administration, endemic violence and impunity, including against trade unionists and the leaders of civil society, and the general absence of the rule of law mean that Honduran workers and its people cannot hold out hope for the future.

Honduras must take immediate and serious measures to address these systematic failings. Otherwise, it is to be feared, which we do not want, that social order will continue to worsen, as we have seen this very month, and as has been recognized at this meeting. Sadly, it can be seen that Hondurans may be forced to take the decision to leave their homes and emigrate elsewhere in search of a better life for them and their families.

The Workers urge the Government of Honduras to take immediate and effective measures to protect the existence and physical safety of all trade union leaders and activists, and to accelerate investigations into anti-union crimes and punish those responsible for such crimes. We also hope that the Government of Honduras will protect and respect the exercise of the right to freedom of association and organization, and will work to gain the confidence of the unions in social dialogue, which is required to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention. It is to be hoped that such social dialogue with workers and employers will be successful in achieving a Labour Code that is effective in practice and in accordance with our Convention.

As we said before, once again the Government of Honduras has not succeeded in protecting or respecting the right to freedom of association and organization, and we therefore reiterate the conclusions of this Committee in 2018 and we urge the Government of Honduras to take immediate measures to give effect to these conclusions, as well as the recommendations of the recent ILO direct contacts mission. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the Government itself to bring an immediate end to all acts of violence against trade unionists, which are undermining any effort to engage in social dialogue.

It is time for the Government to adopt immediately the necessary legislative amendments and to take appropriate measures to provide a global response to all the problems and failures of compliance that are raised year after year in this Committee and which are today denying freedom of association and organization. We have heard the explanations of the Government of Honduras, but we need urgent, rapid and effective measures, because murders are continuing.

With everything that has been heard during this session, it is impossible to consider this to be a case of progress. We take note of the signature of the tripartite agreement as a result of the direct contacts mission that visited the country, and we hope that this agreement will finally result in real measures being taken to address the urgency of the situation. We repeat that we hope that definitive and urgent responses will be adopted in practice. We request the Government to report to the Committee of Experts at its next meeting on the measures that have been taken to give effect to the Convention, and that the Committee of Experts will ensure the focused and specific follow-up of this case. We also consider and urge the Government of Honduras to accept ILO technical assistance with a view to complying with the commitments made in the tripartite agreement.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral statement made by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with serious concern the allegations of acts of anti-union violence, including the allegations of physical aggression and murders, and the prevalent climate of impunity.

In addition, the Committee noted the ILO direct contacts mission that took place in May 2019 and the resulting Tripartite Agreement.

The Committee calls for the Government to apply the Tripartite Agreement, including with respect to the:

- establishment of a national-level committee by June 2019 to combat anti-union violence;

- establishment of a direct line of communication between trade unions and relevant public authorities;

- provision of prompt and effective protection to at-risk trade union leaders and members;

- prompt investigation of anti-union violence with a view to arresting and charging those responsible, including the instigators;

- transparency of the complaints received through biannual reporting;

- need for awareness-raising in relation to protective measures available to trade unionists and human rights defenders;

- reform of the legislative framework, and in particular the Labour Code and the Penal Code, in order to ensure compliance with the Convention; and finally

- adoption of the operating regulations of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT) without prejudice to the complainants’ right to file complaints with the ILO supervisory bodies.

Taking note of the commitments under the Tripartite Agreement, the Committee calls on the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in order to implement the Agreement in collaboration with the ILO, and to elaborate a report in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on progress achieved in the implementation of Convention No. 87 in law and practice to the Committee of Experts before its next sitting in November 2019.

Government representative – The Government of Honduras has noted the conclusions in our case and reiterates its political will and commitment to give effect to them, and particularly the tripartite agreement, for which we will request ILO technical assistance.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



The Government has provided the following written information.

Trade union rights and civil liberties

The Government has noted with deep concern the previous and new allegations of “numerous anti-union crimes”, including various “homicides and death threats”, that occurred between 2010 and 2014. As the international community is aware, violence and insecurity are massive problems with serious consequences for Honduran society. The current administration is therefore making enormous efforts to remove these obstacles, strengthening institutions and implementing various actions and measures, which have combined to enable progress in this respect. Accordingly, in addition to other actions described below, one of the Government’s objectives, in the Strategic Institutional Framework (2015–22) of the Ministry of Security (SEDS), is to help reduce impunity by reinforcing the Criminal Investigation Police and the Technical Criminal Investigation Agency (ATIC), and it has made a specialized and exclusive commitment to human rights by pushing to implement the Public Policy and National Plan of Action on Human Rights (PNADH), for which the State Secretariat at the Human Rights Department has been established and has been operational since January 2018. The statistics for homicides as at 2016 show a downward trend, with the homicide rate per 100,000 population falling by 27 points by comparison with 2011. More recent data show that at the end of 2017 the homicide rate stood at 42.7 per 100,000 population.

Information on the progress of investigations and criminal proceedings corresponding to each specific case

Table of cases [Table not reproduced - See PR 9B(Rev.): http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_632917.pdf#page=58]

Evaluation of progress

As can be seen, nine cases have entailed judicial proceedings for public order offences, variously involving an appeal, a final ruling, the conclusion of proceedings or the adoption of protection mechanisms; two of these cases involved traffic accidents. Two cases have resulted in the issuing of arrest warrants, which are due to be enforced by the police authority. Three cases involving threats have not resulted in any complaint being filed with the prosecution authorities. Six cases involving public order offences are under investigation. It should also be noted that seven trade union officials are covered and protected by the National Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders.

Article 2 ff. of Convention No. 87 relating to the establishment, autonomy and activities of trade union organizations

Reforms to the Labour Code

Chronology

The Government of Honduras states that a process was followed for several years to align reforms to the Labour Code with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The actions taken towards this end are described below:

(a) The Labour Code was issued by Decree No. 189 of 19 May 1959, superseding 18 decree-laws governing labour relations and constituting a single body of law.

(b) Between 1960 and 1993, various sections of the Labour Code were amended to ensure that they were properly applied, with the constant aim of promoting workers’ rights.

(c) In 1993, with advice from the International Labour Organization (ILO), a committee was established comprising: representatives of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP); representatives of the workers from their three confederations (the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH), the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH)); and representatives of the Government from the State Secretariat at the Labour and Social Welfare Department. The work of the tripartite committee resulted in the drawing up by consensus of a preliminary draft of new legislation to replace the Labour Code which had been in force since 1959. The preliminary draft was presented by the tripartite committee to the then President of the Republic, Mr Carlos Roberto Reyna.

(d) The proposed reforms favoured the workers and would improve the application of the provisions of the Code. Despite consensus being reached on the proposals, the workers subsequently made the accusation that sections of private enterprise were unilaterally seeking to introduce reforms to the labour legislation which were aimed at the flexibilization and deregulation of employment. The Government of that time therefore decided not to submit the reforms to the National Congress. Since the parties had been unable to reach agreement on the reforms and in view of the rejection of the reforms drawn up by the tripartite committee, the process of revising the Labour Code was brought to a standstill.

(e) June 2013: a technical committee of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (STSS – Ministry of Labour) drew up proposals to amend 13 sections (articles) of the Labour Code to bring them into line with Convention No. 87 and four sections to align them to Convention No. 98. The Ministry of Labour forwarded the proposed amendments to the ILO Subregional Office in San José, Costa Rica, in order to obtain the technical opinion of the ILO.

(f) March 2014: the Ministry of Labour received comments from the International Labour Standards Department of the ILO in Geneva on the proposed alignment of the Labour Code with Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

(g) March–April 2014: the Ministry of Labour submitted the proposal for alignment of the Labour Code individually to the employer and worker sectors (meetings with each of the workers’ confederations (CGT, CTH and CUTH) and with representatives of private enterprise (COHEP)).

(h) April 2014: the ILO direct contacts mission was received by the Economic and Social Council (CES).

(i) May 2014: the proposal for aligning the Labour Code with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 was submitted to the CES.

(j) May 2014: the CES approved the roadmap for discussing and adopting the proposal to align the Labour Code, taking into account the recommendations made by the ILO Committee of Experts.

(k) September 2014: report of the direct contacts mission – the direct contacts mission was also informed of a communication dated 7 April 2014 in which the CGT, CUTH and CTH, mindful of previous experience, expressed their reservations with regard to the consideration of potential reforms to the Labour Code by the legislative authority and their fear that such reforms would involve “major setbacks for labour rights and gains for big business”.

Current situation of Labour Code reforms

(a) The Government of Honduras reiterates its political will to take the appropriate steps to revise the current Labour Code with a view to harmonizing it with the ILO Conventions it has ratified – a process that has been gradually progressing through social dialogue and on a tripartite basis within the CES, as was the case with chapter III of the Code relating to the new Labour Inspection Act, (Decree No. 178-2016 of 23 January 2017, published in the Official Gazette).

(b) As for the reforms still pending to ensure alignment with Convention No. 87, and recalling what occurred in 2014, when the workers’ confederations expressed reservations, the ILO is already aware that the Ministry of Labour is drafting a new proposal that returns to those sections (articles) left pending in 2014, to serve as a baseline for discussions.

(c) In that respect the Government is meeting its commitment to raise the issue of pending reforms again for discussion within the CES with a view to drafting a roadmap to allow for further alignment of the Code with Convention No. 87 and achieve consensus, so that the reforms can be submitted to the National Congress once the Supreme Court of Justice has given its opinion.

(d) In this instance, the necessary technical assistance and follow-up are once more requested from the Office.

Application of the Convention in practice (new trade union registrations)

In its previous report (2017), the Government of Honduras reported that various requests for legal personality had been submitted and that 25 had been granted between 2014 and May 2017, as follows:

(a) In 2014, five private legal persons were registered, while none were registered in the public sector.

(b) In 2015, six legal persons were registered, all in the private sector.

(c) In 2016, legal personality was granted to eight entities, six in the private sector and two in the public sector.

(d) In 2017, six entities were registered in the private sector.

As there were only two new trade union registrations between May 2017 and March 2018, this gives a total of 27 legal persons registered in the period from 2014 to March 2018. Lastly, the Government of Honduras wishes to reiterate that all these efforts demonstrate respect for and observance of the Conventions and labour standards in force and, in particular, that there is no policy of anti-union persecution or violence by the State and that the cases mentioned in the report are unfortunately part of the violence affecting the country in general for a number of reasons.

In addition, a Government representative reiterated before the Committee the information which had been provided in writing, stating that, with regard to trade union rights and civil liberties, the Government had noted with deep concern the previous and new allegations of “numerous anti-union crimes”, including homicides and death threats that had occurred between 2010 and 2014. Violence and insecurity were massive problems in Honduran society and efforts had been made within the Strategic Institutional Framework to strengthen institutions and reinforce the police and criminal investigation bodies. According to data for 2017, the homicide rate had decreased and seven trade union officials were covered and protected by the National Mechanism for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders. With regard to Article 2 et seq. of the Convention concerning the establishment, autonomy and activities of trade union organizations, the various proposals to reform the Labour Code, in particular the draft reforms of 1993 and 2014, had not been adopted in the end. Accordingly, the Government was making the commitment to discuss the pending reforms once again in the Economic and Social Council (CES) and also draw up a roadmap to enable the alignment of the Code to the Convention to continue. He also emphasized that, in the assessment of the progress made in relation to the matters on which the Committee of Experts had requested information on the following: (1) as could be seen, there were currently nine cases of breaches of public order which were at the appeal stage, final ruling, closed or subject to protection mechanisms. Two of the cases involved traffic accidents; (2) in two cases, arrest warrants had been issued, which were awaiting execution by the police; (3) in three cases involving threats, no complaints had been filed with the prosecution authorities; and (4) six cases involving public order offences were currently under investigation. Lastly, the Government representative reiterated the request for technical assistance and support from the Office, and reaffirmed that all the efforts made bore witness to the desire to comply with the Convention and with labour standards and, in particular, that there was no policy of anti-union persecution or violence by the State. The various cases referred to by the Committee of Experts were part of the violence affecting Honduran society in general for a number of reasons.

The Worker members indicated that for years the Government had committed serious and systematic violations of the right to freedom of association. The Committee of Experts had made this a double-footnoted case, expressing deep regret at the high degree of anti-union violence and expressing deep concern at the situation of impunity with regard to these crimes and the lack of effective protection for trade unionists threatened with violence. The Government had not taken any specific steps to ensure that its labour legislation was in due conformity with the Convention, nor had it applied the legislation in force effectively. The Government had also recently adopted an amendment to the Penal Code that would potentially criminalize social protests as acts of terrorism. As a result, the workers and the trade unions throughout the country were facing overwhelming obstacles with regard to exercising one of their fundamental rights, namely the right to strike. Honduras was one of the most dangerous countries in the world for workers and trade unionists. Since 2010, a total of 14 trade unionists had been murdered. Between 2015 and 2017, the Network against Anti-Union Violence had documented 46 cases of anti-union violence and a total of 69 victims. Moreover, numerous trade unionists were facing brutal assaults, death threats, forced disappearances and persecution. For example, since 2015, Ms Juarez, president of the Public Sector Workers’ Union (SITRASEMCA), lived in constant fear for her life because of receiving threats and having escaped from an attempted abduction in April 2017. The acts of violence were creating a climate of terror, which in practice was stifling worker representation and trade union activities in the country. Trade unionists were also a target for violence in the aftermath of the elections held in 2017. In December, for example, workers participating in a peaceful protest organized by trade unions in the maquila (export processing) sector in Colonia Arellano had been attacked by the military police to make them disperse. Three trade unionists had sustained bullet wounds and one had died. The failure by the Government to tackle and prevent anti-union crimes was creating a climate of total impunity. The Government had made no progress in bringing to justice those responsible for the murder of trade unionists. For example, the murders of Sonia Landaverde Miranda, Alfredo Misael Ávila Castellanos, Evelio Posadas Velásquez, Roger Abraham Vallejo and Juana Suyapa Bustillo were still being investigated. Despite the fact that arrest warrants had been issued, nobody had been detained in relation to the murders of Alma Yaneth Díaz Ortega and Uva Erlinda Castellanos Vigil, which had taken place four years earlier. The Government had not supplied any information to the Committee of Experts on what it had done to investigate the murders of Maribel Sánchez, Fredis Omar Rodríguez, Claudia Larissa Brizuela, Martín Florencio and Félix Murillo López. The Worker members deplored the murders of José Ángel Flores and Silmer Dionisios George in 2016, despite the fact that these individuals, in the wake of serious repeated death threats, had been the subject of protective measures from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). These murders showed clearly that the protection provided by the Government was totally inadequate.

Apart from the anti-union violence, the Government had adopted an amendment to the Penal Code in 2017 which defined a whole range of activities as terrorist offences. A trade union official might be accused of terrorism if his union participated in a social protest that was subsequently considered by a prosecutor to constitute subversion of the constitutional order. Taking account of the events of the last few years, and the recent post-electoral context, in which the trade unions played a key role in social protests, this legislation which was totally out of line with international instruments relating to the subject of terrorism could easily be used to criminalize any legitimate exercise by trade unions of their right to freedom of association. The situation in the country was aggravated by numerous significant gaps in the national legislation whereby workers had been denied the enjoyment of fundamental trade union rights. For over 30 years, the Committee of Experts had requested that the Labour Code be modified and had indicated that the right to freedom of association had been denied to workers in agricultural undertakings which did not permanently employ more than ten workers. Agriculture was the biggest sector in the country and employed 27 per cent of the workforce (over 1 million workers). The act of organizing these workers was obstructed by the legal requirement to have more than 30 workers to establish a trade union, which prevented the setting up of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises. Workers were unable to elect their representatives in full freedom. Trade union representatives had to be of Honduran nationality, participate in the corresponding activity and know how to read and write. The provisions governing strikes were so restrictive that they nullified the right to strike, depriving workers and trade unions of a fundamental means of defending their interests. Those terms included securing a two-thirds majority of the total membership of the trade union, banning federations and confederations from calling strikes, and meeting excessive prior requirements for strikes in public services that were not essential in the strict sense of the term. In practice, workers all over the country were experiencing serious violations of their right to freedom of association. For example, the Union of Agri-Industrial and Allied Workers (STAS) had presented a complaint against an employer in the palm oil sector who was not paying the minimum wage or statutory benefits to the workers. On many occasions, employers had denied labour inspectors access to workplaces, and had dismissed 18 workers who had attempted to form a local branch of the STAS. The dismissals had sparked a strike of 160 workers and in November, the enterprise had dismissed another 80 workers belonging to the union. Numerous striking workers had been assaulted by private security guards and threatened with imprisonment while picketing peacefully in front of the offices of the enterprise. Steps had been taken towards dissolving the union, since the law allowed dissolution as a punishment should a strike be declared illegal, and that also constituted a violation of the Convention. The Government had not dissolved the union but almost all the trade union activists had not been reinstated in their jobs. Lastly, hardly any of the violations cited in the 2012 complaint against Honduras concerning the workers in the maquila sector and agriculture in the context of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with the United States had been resolved. Since 2009, there had been a drastic decrease in trade union membership. The serious and constant violations of trade union rights for years were having a profound impact on labour relations, and left a question mark over the status of democracy and human rights. The Worker members therefore urged the Government: (a) to take immediate and effective steps to protect the lives and safety of trade union activists, members and workers; (b) to speed up investigations into all anti-union offences and crimes and punish the perpetrators; and (c) to update the legislation in accordance with the Convention without further delay, and to protect the right to freedom of association in practice.

The Employer members expressed appreciation for the information provided on the application of the Convention and welcomed the presence of high authorities before the Committee. The case had been examined twice since 1987, in 1991 and 1992. Since 1998, the Committee of Experts had addressed some 20 observations to Honduras concerning its application of the Convention, as well as others on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98). In its 2017 report of the Committee of Experts, Honduras had been included with a double footnote. In its observations, the Committee of Experts took note of the comments made by the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CTH), the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP). With regard to trade union rights and civil liberties, the Committee of Experts had noted with concern the large number of anti-union crimes and death threats between 2010 and 2014, and had asked the Government to provide information on the status of the relevant investigations and criminal proceedings. Reports of yet more murders, kidnappings and death threats against trade unionists were greatly to be deplored. The United Nations Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/SR/3378-3379) had also expressed concern at acts of violence and intimidation against trade unionists in a climate of impunity. As the Government had indicated, violence and insecurity were very serious problems for Honduras and had grave consequences. The Government was making efforts, strengthening institutions and taking a range of measures to make progress on the issue. In that respect, the Strategic Institutional Framework (2015–22) of the Ministry of Security was intended to reduce impunity by strengthening the Criminal Investigation Police, the Technical Agency for Criminal Investigation, and, with respect to human rights, promote a public policy and plan of action on human rights for which a Ministry of Human Rights had been created in January 2018. Furthermore, already in January 2016, a downward trend had been observed in the number of murders: the murder rate per 100,000 inhabitants had fallen by 27 percentage points compared with 2011. In 2017, it had reached 42.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. Moreover, seven trade union leaders were covered by the National Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders. With regard to the murders that had taken place between 2010 and 2014, COHEP had not commented because it was not in full possession of the facts. Between 2016 and 2018, an interview with the Prosecutor-General had been requested but was never granted. The death of Hondurans for unknown reasons was regrettable. The Public Prosecutor’s Office was now providing information on criminal cases that had been brought to court, investigated or opened; that were waiting for arrest warrants to be acted upon, in which rulings had been handed down, concluded, or in which protection measures had been ordered. The 2017 Global Peace Index placed Honduras 106th out of 163 countries. The Government did not have a deliberate anti-union policy. Rights to freedom of association could only be exercised by workers and employers in a climate free of violence, pressure and threats, where human rights were respected, and it was for the Government to guarantee respect for those principles, as the Committee on Freedom of Association had pointed out. The Employer members had requested that investigations were urgently needed so that the perpetrators could be located and brought to justice. In addition, measures should be taken to provide prompt and effective protection to trade union leaders at risk, as the case was a serious one.

In relation to Article 2 et seq. of the Convention, relating to the establishment, autonomy and activities of trade unions, it should be noted that the Labour Code had been adopted in 1959. In 1993, under ILO guidance, a tripartite committee had been set up to draft a possible amendment to the Code, which had been submitted to the President of the Republic. Although the reform was favourable to some but not all workers, they had unilaterally accused private enterprises of attempting to weaken labour through flexibilization, so it had not been possible to approve the text. In 2013, a technical committee of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had drafted a reform to 13 sections (articles) in order to bring the Code into line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The draft had been submitted to the ILO Office in San José, Costa Rica, for technical comments. In April 2014, an ILO direct contacts mission had visited the country and the draft had been submitted to the Economic and Social Council (CES). In September of the same year, the trade union sector let its reservations to the reform be known because, in its words, it would lead to “major setbacks for labour rights and gains for big business”. Social dialogue was needed, as had occurred with the adoption of the new Labour Inspection Act. On the basis of the 2014 draft text, the Ministry of Labour had returned to the sections proposed on that occasion with a view to resubmitting them to the CES and drafting a roadmap for agreeing on how to align the legislation with the Convention. Assistance and technical support had again been requested from the Office. The COHEP was willing to review the labour legislation but since 2014, no meeting of the CES had been convened for the purpose. In April 2018, an email had been sent requesting views on the text of the reform, giving 24 hours to comment, which was unacceptable. Tripartite dialogue required good faith, which had not been demonstrated. The Committee of Experts recalled that for some years it had referred to the need to reform the Labour Code to bring it into line with the Convention. It had referred to the following provisions, among others: (1) the exclusion from the rights and guarantees of the Convention of workers in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which did not permanently employ more than ten workers; (2) the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise; (3) the requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union; (4) the requirement that the officers of a trade union must be of Honduran nationality, be engaged in the corresponding activity, and be able to read and write; and (5) the authority of the competent ministry to end disputes in the oil industry services. Moreover, it was worrying that the Experts’ observations referred to a number of legislative issues relating to the right to strike. In that regard, the Employers’ group reiterated its position that the right to strike was not regulated by the Convention and that there was no basis for discussing the issue within the Committee; that the conclusions in the case could not refer to the right to strike; and that the Government was not obliged to follow the Experts’ recommendations on that specific issue. They recalled the joint statement of the Workers’ group and the Employers’ group and the statement of the Government group (both of 23 February 2015). The latter stated that “the scope and conditions of this right are regulated at the national level”. As such, any request from the Committee of Experts for the Government to align its legislation and practice with its own rules on the “right to strike” was not binding.

The Worker member of Honduras expressed concern regarding the Government’s failure to take action in response to the murders of, threats against and persecution of trade union leaders, and to provide information on the matter. According to a report by the Committee on Anti-Union Violence (comprising three workers’ federations), impunity had prevailed in over 60 cases of anti-union violence in the past three years. The Committee of Experts had expressed regret at the absence of convictions against the perpetrators of anti-union crimes. Its report had referred to 19 murder victims (Sonia Landaverde Miranda, Alfredo Misael Ávila Castellanos, Evelio Posadas Velásquez, Juana Suyapa Bustillo, Alma Yaneth Díaz Ortega, Uva Erlinda Castellanos Vigil, Maribel Sánchez, Fredis Omar Rodríguez, Claudia Larissa Brizuela, Roger Abraham Vallejo, Martín Florencio, Félix Murillo López, Manuel Crespo, José Ángel Flores, Silmer Dionisios George and Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez) and five victims of threats, kidnappings, surveillance, persecution and attacks (Miguel López, Nelson Núñez, Patricia Riera, Moisés Sánchez and Hermes Misael Sánchez). It had expressed its deepest concern regarding such crimes, and had emphasized that trade union rights could only be exercised in an environment that was free from violence and when the human rights established in the Constitution were respected. Furthermore, in May 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur had highlighted the vulnerability, criminalization and denigration of human rights defenders in the country. The Government had submitted a proposal to resume discussions of the reform of the Labour Code in the CES, which stated that the agreement of the workers’ sector would be required for such discussions. Moreover, the latter had regretted the Government’s interpretation of sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code with regard to the lists of demands and collective agreements of public employees’ trade unions, and the consequences for the education sector. It had also expressed concern regarding the Government’s acceptance of preliminary drafts of collective agreements proposed by the employers’ sector, which weakened labour, social and wage conditions. The speaker called for urgent and immediate action to be taken to ensure: (1) that a direct contacts mission was organized to assess the situation, and that the ILO Regional Office provided assistance to prepare the mission; (2) that the ILO provided technical assistance for the reform of the Labour Code; (3) that the Government provided detailed information on violence against rural leaders, indigenous people, trade unionists, teachers and environmentalists, to promote preventive actions; and (4) that negotiations be resumed on collective agreements by governmental and semi-governmental organizations.

The Employer member of Honduras said that, since ratification of the Convention in 1956, there had been various reforms to the Labour Code concerning the fundamental right to freedom of association. The Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), a representative organization, had commented on the application of the Convention, as had the Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CTH) and the CGT. Violent acts against any Honduran citizen were regrettable; with respect to the cases raised, the State should investigate, find out what had happened and punish those responsible. With regard to reforming the Labour Code to bring it into line with the Convention, the COHEP stood ready to engage in tripartite discussions on the proposal for reform in a spirit of cooperation and social dialogue within the CES. The employers’ sector in Honduras believed in the right to organize and respect for the self-determination of employers and workers. It was worrying to note that the observation of the Committee of Experts referred to legislative issues relating to the right to strike. In that respect, it must be reiterated that the Employers’ group took the position that that right was not regulated by the Convention, and that there was no basis for discussing the issue within the Committee. As such, the conclusions in the case should not refer to the right to strike, and the Government was not obliged to follow the recommendations of the Committee of Experts on that specific issue. Furthermore, it was important to highlight the joint statement of the Workers’ group and the Employers’ group of 23 February 2015 and the statement of the Government group of the same date, which stated that “the scope and conditions of this right are regulated at the national level”. As such, any request from the Committee of Experts for the Government to align its legislation and practice with its own rules on the “right to strike” was not only not binding, but also beyond the scope of standards supervision. The democratization of employers’ and workers’ organizations, whereby decisions were taken by the majority in conditions of equality and freedom, without any pressure, was important. Since 1993, the COHEP had supported the decision to undertake an overall reform of the Labour Code, which had fallen behind the times, with the aim of promoting and generating employment in the country. Establishing more than one primary or enterprise-level trade union at a single workplace was also important, but collective bargaining should fall to whichever body united the majority of workers at an enterprise. An effective reform of national legislation to bring it into line with the Conventions was necessary and should be carried out in a tripartite manner, with technical support from the Office, within a specified time frame of no more than three months. It should be done within the CES framework and should take account of all sectors.

The Government member of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Norway, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, stated that the above countries attached great importance to the respect of human rights, including freedom of association of workers and employers and the protection of the right to organize, and recalled the important role played by the ILO. Through the Association Agreement between the EU and Central America, the EU and Honduras had both committed to effectively implement the fundamental ILO Conventions. Although there was progress, high murder rates fueled by the significant presence of organized crime in the country constituted a persistent problem, and the human rights situation remained highly challenging. She expressed deep concern over the recent allegations of new murders, kidnappings and death threats against members of the trade union movement contained in the report of the Committee of Experts and requested more information on the outcome of the investigations in the cases of murders which had occurred between 2010 and 2014. She urged the national authorities to ensure that proper investigation and prosecutions of material and intellectual perpetrators of such crimes were carried out promptly, and requested it to take measures so as to ensure that trade union representatives were duly protected, as the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations could only be exercised in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats. Fighting impunity should remain a priority of the Government, and strong support was therefore expressed towards the work of the Organization of American States mission against corruption and impunity in Honduras. Strengthening and ensuring impartiality of the national police and judicial institutions were also considered central to achieve the goal. Freedom of association and collective bargaining constituted a powerful tool to ensure social stability and economic development and although creating an environment conducive to tripartite dialogue and freedom of association was a complex task, it remained the Government’s first responsibility. The Committee of Experts had been emphasizing for many years the need to amend certain provisions of the Labour Code which were not in conformity with the Convention, in particular the restrictions to the right to establish a trade union and to the right to strike. In that regard, the speaker welcomed the reform of the Labour Code initiated a few years ago, with the support of the ILO, but expressed regret that no progress had been made since the draft reform had been submitted to the Economic and Social Council (CES) in 2014. While acknowledging the complex and challenging political environment prevailing in the country, the Government was encouraged to organize proper consultations on the reform with the social partners with a view to finalizing it, and submitting a draft to Congress and the social partners were called on to engage in the discussions in a constructive manner. The EU and its Member States would continue to cooperate with, and support the Government in its efforts to comply with ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Paraguay, speaking on behalf of a significant majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries, indicated that the composition of the delegation and the information presented demonstrated the State’s openness and the commitment of its highest authorities to work to investigate all cases. Any act of aggression, violence or impunity against the integrity or lives of individuals must be rejected and, at the same time, the great efforts made by the Government to reduce rates of violence should be noted. The Government had made progress regarding the protection, promotion and defence of human rights, particularly workers’ rights, and regarding criminal investigation (the prosecution of 41 per cent of the aforementioned cases and comprehensive measures to protect seven trade union leaders). Between 2014 and 2018, legal personality had been granted to a significant number of new trade union organizations in both the public and private sectors. The efforts and willingness of the Government to refer the discussion on the Labour Code reforms to the CES and thus continue the joint development of a roadmap to bring the Code into conformity with the Convention were appreciated. Lastly, the speaker encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to fulfil its international commitments on labour, and trusted that it would continue to strengthen dialogue and tripartite consensus.

The Government member of Panama expressed his support for the statement made by the Government member of Paraguay. The ongoing process of legislative reform in the country was a demonstration of the Government’s efforts to solve the problems related to organized crime, which depended on destabilizing the State, and was not directed at employers’ and workers’ organizations. He welcomed the assistance provided by the ILO, and encouraged the Government to continue its efforts.

The Worker member of Spain expressed his solidarity with all the trade unionists, workers and citizens who put their physical well-being and lives in danger to defend fundamental rights at work in Honduras. Those workers not only suffered from high levels of insecurity, inequality and poverty, but also experienced extraordinary levels of anti-trade union violence, whose sole objective was to undermine and destroy the trade union movement. The illegal detention, kidnapping and murder of trade union members formed part of a deplorable reality, which was a direct consequence of the State’s lack of legitimacy, the institutional crisis, and the complete absence of a separation of powers that had existed in Honduras since the coup d’état in 2009. That situation was a confirmation of a clear violation of both the Convention and human rights. The Government had not done enough to comply with the Convention; on the contrary, its action had led it to limit and hamper the legal exercise of the guarantees enshrined therein. In that regard, there had been no progress in the prosecution of those who had murdered trade union leaders and members; in the strengthening of policies to protect and react against anti-trade union behaviour; or in bringing the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention. In view of the above, the speaker supported the demands of the trade union organizations of Honduras and considered that the ILO should send a direct contacts mission to verify observance of the Convention, and provide the necessary technical assistance.

The Government member of Lebanon welcomed the information presented by the Government and expressed appreciation of the efforts made and procedures taken with regard to combating impunity at all levels, whether legal, judicial or administrative in order to protect human rights defenders, judges and trade unionists. She also welcomed the reform of the Labour Code to ensure compliance with the Convention, encouraged social dialogue to finalize the amendments, and invited the ILO to provide technical assistance to Honduras, whenever necessary.

The Employer member of Chile noted with concern that, despite government efforts to combat violence, the situation remained critical, as reported by the CGT and CTH. Recognizing that impunity was a problem of the utmost seriousness and a dangerous incentive for violence and insecurity, the Government should increase human and material resources to guarantee the life and safety of its population. Furthermore, the Government should amend the Labour Code and align it to current industrial relations and the Convention. Lastly, the request from the Committee of Experts to amend legal provisions on the right to strike was misguided since that right was not specified in any ILO Convention.

The Worker member of the United States indicated that the recurring violence against unionists demanded attention and that persistent violations of freedom of association enabled countless labour law violations and impunity to be the norm in Honduras. He further pointed to the utter failure of the governments, including those of Honduras and the United States, in using ILO standards to protect workers’ rights in international trade agreements. Although the Central American Free Trade Agreement required the parties to protect freedom of association, Honduras’ lack of compliance with the Convention had been recognized for years. In March 2012, a complaint was filed for abuses of labour rights under the labour chapter of the mentioned trade agreement and finally, after almost three years, the Government of the United States found merit in all 17 cases in the complaint. As a result, both Governments negotiated a detailed monitoring plan and consulted with workers and employers to adopt an improved labour inspection law. However, six years after the complaint, not a single trade unionist had been reinstated and not a single union had been restored in any of the mentioned cases. In addition to violence, practices by employers, and inaction by the Government frustrated workers’ attempts at forming trade unions and defending labour standards. For instance, in the agriculture sector – the largest industry in Honduras – systematic violations of minimum wage, overtime, health and safety and child labour standards persisted, and those who tried to form an industry-wide union experienced recurring violence and a denial of association rights, including attempts at creating employer-dominated unions, employers’ refusal to bargain with workers’ representatives and anti-union tactics, such as harassment and isolating workplace leaders, as well as delays by the Government in recognizing local sections of the STAS. Anti-union violence and repression of agricultural workers’ freedom of association constituted a strategic denial of rights, in which employers and the Government appeared to collaborate, and did not contribute to decent work and sustainable development. International actors, like Fair Trade USA, also falsely certified that a multinational produce company is complying with labour standards in the midst of dozens of labour violations, some of which had occurred the previous month

The Government member of Switzerland endorsed the statement made on behalf of the EU and regretted that the Committee had to discuss the case once again. Indeed, strong and sustainable working relations and social dialogue based on trust and security were some of the key factors underpinning economically sustainable development. It was deplorable to discover that no perpetrators had been convicted for the murders, kidnappings, violence and threats identified by the Committee of Experts. The violence and insecurity faced by trade unionists as well as impunity seriously impeded the smooth functioning of social dialogue. The Government should be encouraged to respect the basic principle of freedom of association and adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the ongoing procedures were concluded as quickly as possible. The Government should also continue the Labour Code reforms, in conjunction with the social partners, to ensure full conformity with international labour standards. He encouraged Honduras to continue efforts to promote social dialogue and guarantee the necessary climate of trust.

The Worker member of the Republic of Korea stated that in 2015, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions and other groups visited San Pedro Sula to research on human and trade union rights compliance in Korean companies operating in the city. Workers in a company producing car parts had testified to repeated violations of basic labour rights, including dismissals of elected trade union leaders and the Government’s failure to enforce laws to protect those rights, or provide any remedy to workers. After the coming into effect of the new labour inspection law in March 2017, the concerned workers had filed a claim for violations of freedom of association but they were still awaiting a response from the Government and the situation had not improved since then. In October 2017, the Labour Ministry, performed an inspection through its labour inspectorate, on the issue of collective bargaining and although the employers committed to collective bargaining, seven months later, they continued to refuse the union’s recognition or to bargain collectively. The mentioned inspection had also revealed that violations of freedom of association and collective bargaining contained in a 2012 complaint continued, and that the employer continued to deny that the violations had occurred, delayed and appealed the charges and delayed justice for the workers. Discrimination against, and the firing of union members also persisted, and the employer used harassment, as well as the changing of work assignments and break times to isolate workplace leaders from their co-workers and union members. The speaker therefore shared the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts and urged the Government to take every effort, from legislative to administrative measures, so that workers in Honduras could fully exercise the right to freedom of association and to collective bargaining.

The Government member of Canada noted with regret the lack of progress by the Government in making reforms to the Labour Code to bring it into compliance with the Convention, as well as the apparent lack of tripartite consultations associated with the reform. She expressed concern at the human rights violations cited by the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as the allegations of anti-union murders, kidnappings, violence and death threats, with apparent impunity for offenders, highlighted in the report of the Committee of Experts and discussed in the Conference Committee. The speaker urged the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that investigations were carried out promptly and in accordance with the rule of law and due process, and emphasized that it was crucial that adequate investigatory, prosecutory and protective measures were undertaken to allow the free exercise of labour rights in the country. The Government was further urged to take, in full consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, all necessary measures to reform the Labour Code in accordance with the principles of the Convention. Finally, the speaker stated that her Government remained committed to supporting respect for human rights in Honduras, including through the full application of international human and labour rights instruments, especially the Convention, and urged the Government to put into action its commitment to implementing and respecting those norms.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) referred to several violations of freedom of association, such as the failure by the Ministry of the Interior to register the new executive committee of the National Association of Public Sector Employees of Honduras (ANDEPH); the dismissal of the previous president of the association from the Ministry of Health on 13 January 2016, which had led her to file a legal complaint for anti-union dismissal; the dismissal of 700 workers from the Municipality of San Pedro Sula on 30 March 2018, of whom 39 were members of the Trade Union of Employees and Workers of the Municipality of Sampedrana (SIDEYTMS) who, since they had trade union immunity, had taken legal action to be reinstated or receive compensation, and subsequently the refusal of the mayor to sign the new collective agreement; persecution resulting from false allegations made against members of the Trade Union for Medical, Hospital and Allied Workers (SITRAMEDHYS), such as the president of branch No. 3 at the Santa Barbara Hospital and the president of branch No. 34 at the Puerto Cortez Hospital. Furthermore, the presidential palace had put in place a recruitment system for new positions to deal with an excessive workload but was surreptitiously only appointing non-unionized workers. Such cases could be considered trivial compared to the murders of dozens of trade unionists and human rights activists in the country. However, if the Government was incapable of tackling trivial issues, it would be even less able and willing in political terms to resolve the murders of the speaker’s colleagues. It was evident that the strategies, national frameworks, specialized ministries and bodies, memorandums of understanding and roadmaps were not working effectively to confront impunity, violence and insecurity. They merely prevented the Government from taking responsibility. Such measures could no longer be considered acceptable ways of responding to the problems in the country. Justice was needed so that Honduran trade unionists could exercise their rights in a climate free from intimidation, violence or death. The Committee’s conclusions should reflect the gravity of the situation and call on the Government to achieve immediate and tangible results.

The Worker member of Colombia observed that the Government was once again being criticized by the supervisory system for serious violations of the Convention, as denounced by the ITUC, the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas (TUCA), Education International (EI) and the national trade union confederations, in view of the repeated cases of threats, abductions and murders of trade union leaders from various sectors (including education, which was the sector where there were usually the most victims due to the exercise of freedom of association). The absence of the effective investigation of the crimes, the refusal to recognize their trade union origins and the failure to impose exemplary sentences left the way open for crimes against men and women trade union leaders and added to the gravity of the violations of the right to life and personal safety. Recalling that the Committee of Experts had noted very serious obstacles to the exercise of the right to strike, in violation of the Convention, which had also been observed in the case of Colombia, it was regrettable that both countries were ignoring those comments. Indeed, federations and confederations were prohibited from calling strikes, unachievable majorities were required to approve strike action and strikes were prohibited in services that were not essential in the strict sense of the term. Moreover, no amendments were being made to the Labour Code, which did not guarantee freedom of association and continued to impose unacceptable restrictions on its exercise. He expressed concern at the repeated failure of governments to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Conference Committee and fully supported the call made by the Worker member of Honduras for a direct contacts mission.

The Government member of the Dominican Republic expressed support for the statement by GRULAC and acknowledged the action taken by the Government for the recognition of the legal personality of new unions, the progress made in relation to security, as supplemented by legislative, judicial and administrative measures for the reinforcement of the institutions responsible for the effective protection of human rights, peaceful coexistence and the full enjoyment of fundamental labour rights and principles.

An observer representing Education International (EI) emphasized the role played by branch organizations, unions and the working class in combating the coup d’état in 2009 and its consequences (the dismissal of teachers, murders, the imprisonment and suspension of 18 and 303 teachers, respectively; the cessation of dialogue between primary school teachers and the education authorities and the freezing of the wages of teachers for nine years; the unemployment of 28,000 primary school teachers; the existence of 4,500 and 2,500 schools with a single teacher or two teachers, respectively; the lack of water and electricity in school buildings; the exclusion from the public education system of around 500,000 children and young persons; the exclusion under the terms of the Basic Education Act of teachers and society in general from decision-making bodies for the formulation and monitoring of public education policies; the high rate of illiteracy; the reduction in the education budget; and the adoption of legislation criminalizing public protest). According to the violence observatory of the National Autonomous University of Honduras, since 2009, a total of 83 teachers had been murdered with impunity, as well as 30 students in the first quarter of 2018. In view of the violence, teachers were emigrating to other countries. It had been proposed without success to the Government that a dialogue forum should be established to conclude a social pact for high quality public education. He called for: (1) a direct contacts mission to go to the country to assess the situation; (2) the Government to report on the progress achieved in the governmental and jurisdictional processes; and (3) impunity not to be permitted under any circumstances in respect of the crimes denounced.

The Government member of Mexico endorsed the statement by GRULAC and welcomed the information provided and the specific action taken by the Government to give effect to the observation by the Committee of Experts and, in particular, its decision to resubmit to the CES, the principal social dialogue mechanism in the country and the pending 2014 reforms to the Labour Code. She trusted that agreement would be reached on the definition of a roadmap for the harmonization of the Labour Code with the Convention. Respect for fundamental labour rights was an essential aspect of the achievement of decent work, and the openness of the Government and the fact that it was prepared to collaborate with the supervisory bodies was to be welcomed. In view of the good will demonstrated, she encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to meet the challenges indicated by the Committee of Experts and to continue working with the ILO to reinforce dialogue as a fundamental instrument for achieving peaceful labour relations.

The Worker member of Brazil noted the deep concern expressed by the trade union confederations of Honduras at the murders, death threats, persecution and surveillance of trade union leaders and the negligence with which the Government treated such cases. No report had been received on the prosecution of those crimes, despite the fact that during the past decade over 300 human rights defenders had been murdered. The Government should be reminded that it was the constitutional obligation of the State to guarantee that the rights of workers’ organizations could be exercised in a climate free from violence, pressure or threats, and in which human rights were fully respected. The Government had not responded to the request to revise the Labour Code and had imposed laws which undermined the labour rights set out in the Labour Code and in international Conventions. That was the case of the Hourly Employment Act; the amendment to section 7 of the Labour Code; and the amendment to section 72 of the Labour Inspection Act. In view of the gravity of the situation, he called on the Government to guarantee full freedom of assembly and demonstration, and to put an immediate end to practices which were in violation of human rights and freedom of association.

The Government member of Brazil supported the statement by GRULAC. He further expressed concern at the procedures adopted by the Committee without tripartite consensus. He firmly rejected acts of anti-union violence and encouraged the Government to continue its efforts to make tangible progress in the prevention of violence and in combating impunity. He acknowledged the efforts made, through specific measures and legislative changes, to promote fundamental labour rights and principles, and particularly freedom of association, and to reform and modernize the national labour legislation.

The Worker member of Canada stated that the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding anti-union crimes and the prevailing context of impunity was situated in a broader systematic context of violence against trade unionists, as well as defenders of human and environmental rights. According to various sources, since 2009, 31 trade unionists had been assassinated, 200 injured in violent attacks, 52 workers killed in confrontations with landowners and the Government, 120 environmental activists killed (since 2010) and attacks and repression of Honduran citizens had continued with 14 deaths (including children) in election-related violence in December 2017. The social conflicts were linked to economic disparities and government policies, including agrarian and investment policies, which often resulted in granting land permits to international corporations, such as Canadian and United States firms, thus superseding the rights of the rural poor. The most vulnerable people affected had limited legal recourse to protect their rights and in doing so, were subjected to smear campaigns, intimidation, threats and attacks, as was the case of an environmental activist and indigenous leader Berta Caceres assassinated two years ago in her home after years of threats against her life. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, impunity rates ranged between 95 to 98 per cent and justice was thus rarely served. To conclude, the speaker echoed the Committee of Experts’ observations that the absence of convictions against those guilty of crimes reinforced the climate of violence and insecurity and was damaging to the exercise of trade union and human rights.

The Government member of El Salvador endorsed the statement by GRULAC and welcomed the information provided on the effect given to the Convention. The presence of high-level authorities in the Committee bore witness to the commitment of the Government. Emphasis should be placed on the efforts made in the fields of prevention, protection and investigation in defence of human rights, and particularly workers’ rights; the examination by the courts of 41 per cent of the cases referred to; the comprehensive measures for the protection of seven trade union leaders; the submission to the CES of the pending reforms of the Labour Code; and the joint development of a roadmap to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention. She trusted that the Government would continue to take action to ensure the application of the Convention and in so doing to guarantee freedom of association and the right to organize.

The Worker member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela recalled that the importance of the Convention, which was one of the fundamental Conventions, lay in the protection of the right of all workers to establish freely unions to promote and defend their labour rights, including freedom of association. The Committee of Experts had noted a series of murders of trade union leaders, primary school teachers, indigenous persons, rural workers, defenders of human and environmental rights, which bore witness to a disregard for life by those whose interests were affected by the action taken by such men and women. The high number of deaths in the country due to participation in social and political protests, the organization of unions, the defence of the environment or merely reporting corruption was the reason why the case was being discussed by the Committee. It was important to lay emphasis on the total impunity which prevailed in those cases, for which reason it was necessary to call on the Government to establish mechanisms for dialogue with a view to establishing effective programmes for the protection of defenders of human and labour rights. The situation of public sector unions, which were denied access to collective bargaining and wage increases, illustrating the lack of protection of labour rights, was a cause of concern, as was the fear hindering workers from participating in processes for the reform of the Labour Code based on the possibility that their rights might be prejudiced. Social oppression, combined with greater flexibility, was resulting in a loss of labour rights, through reforms that undermined acquired benefits. Legislation which encouraged lower levels of social protection and the failure to give effect to tripartite agreements had resulted in the lack of labour protection being noted at the international level. A direct contacts mission was necessary to assess the information provided by the Government and to consult workers’ confederations in Honduras on the real situation with regard to labour-related crime and increased flexibilization of employment, particularly the role of the State as the protector of human and labour rights.

Another Government representative said that security was an ongoing priority of the current administration. Violence and insecurity still presented serious problems and the consequences for Honduran society were serious. Consequently, the Government was making great efforts to remove those obstacles, strengthening institutions and implementing a series of state actions. Together those measures had led to progress in the protection of citizens, demonstrated by the fact that Honduras had reduced its homicide rate to 42.7 per 100,000 inhabitants in five years, a historic achievement for the country and an example for the world considering that in 2011, the figure had been 87.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. Those achievements were a result of the aforementioned progress, such as the protection of trade unionists and human rights defenders, the establishment of a structure within the executive branch to prevent and investigate crime and the subsequent strengthening of that structure. Regarding progress made in combating organized crime, efforts had been intensified. In 2016, a total of 18 extraditions had been carried out; 9,395 arrest warrants had been issued; ten drugs laboratories had been destroyed; 8,350 firearms had been decommissioned; and 1,256 assets of illicit origin had been seized. That progress had been possible thanks to the efforts of the justice system and renewed coordination in the fight against crime. Efforts were continuing for the comprehensive strengthening of criminal investigation: the Public Prosecutor’s Office had received more than US$24 million between 2015 and 2017, allowing that body to boost investigations through the creation of new agencies such as the Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Justice Workers, Defenders of Workers and Social Communicators. It had also allowed the Technical Agency for Criminal Investigation to be strengthened, increasing its budget from US$1.1 million to $6.4 million. The Government had also approved the special regulations for the organization and operation of the forensic medicine directorate and the special regulations for the organization and operation of the directorate for combating drug trafficking. Regarding efforts to improve and strengthen the justice system in the country, a series of measures had been implemented including: (i) an increase in 2017 of more than 10 million lempiras (HNL) in the budget for the judiciary, in comparison with 2016; (ii) the revision of the Special Act on Judicial Bodies with National Territorial Jurisdiction; and (iii) the establishment of special courts with national jurisdiction to hear cases of corruption and extortion; and the establishment of the special commission for the selection of judges and magistrates for those courts, consisting of representatives from civil society, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Mission to Support the Fight against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras (MACCIH). The aforementioned efforts represented some of the most significant examples in Honduras of the fight against corruption and impunity, with particular emphasis on the establishment of the MACCIH in 2016, thereby the strengthening of investigative work of state institutions. Furthermore, laws facilitating work against corruption and impunity had been adopted including: (i) the establishment of the Special Prosecution Unit to Combat Impunity in Corruption (UFECIC); (ii) the approval of the Act on Financing, Transparency and Inspection of Political Parties in Honduras; and (iii) the introduction of an anti-corruption policy at the Office of the Prosecutor-General. Honduras was progressively moving away from its past marked by the violence of organized crime and was showing a more amiable face to human rights defenders. An important step in that regard was the adoption of the Act for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Journalists, Justice Workers, Defenders of Workers and Social Communicators, which established the national protection mechanism that currently provides protection for seven trade union leaders. Regarding the case of Ms Berta Cáceres, nine individuals had been detained and the case was ongoing. The scope of the protective measures prescribed by the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights included the members of the San Isidro Indigenous Council and the Lenca Peace Movement. The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders had recently visited the country, which sent a clear message of openness and a willingness to continue making improvements to overcome human rights challenges. Lastly, the promotion and protection of human rights in Honduras had been strengthened with the establishment of the State Secretariat at the Human Rights Department, which represented a decisive step by the State towards the protection of human rights. There were currently 211 human rights defenders, judicial workers and trade unionists under protection.

Another Government representative reiterated that all those efforts proved beyond doubt that Honduras was serious about honouring its international commitments to protect the rights guaranteed by the Convention and that there was no state policy of anti-union persecution and violence, but rather that structures had been put in place to fight impunity and protect the rights of trade union leaders. With regard to reforms to the Labour Code and new trade union registrations, the acts of the new Government, and respect for labour rights, Honduras was entering a new phase in which more individual liberties and the exercise of rights were being guaranteed. In that context, the Government reaffirmed its political will to take the steps necessary to reform the Labour Code so as to align it with the Conventions Honduras had ratified, a process that had been taking place gradually through social dialogue and on a tripartite basis within the CES, as had occurred with the new Labour Inspection Act, which had been the most far-reaching reform to the Labour Code since it had first come into force. With regard to progress in applying the new Labour Inspection Act, the Act had enabled a new culture of compliance to be established gradually, with 32,268 inspections carried out to date, benefiting 433,304 workers. Moreover, since the Act had come into force, a total of around US$1.2 million had been levied in fines for various breaches of labour law, including a total of US$62,000 for violations of the right to freedom of association and US$198,000 for obstructing the work of the inspection services. As for aligning the Labour Code with the Convention, and the reforms still pending, and recalling what had occurred in 2014, when workers’ confederations had expressed reservations, the Ministry of Labour was drafting a new proposal to serve as a baseline for discussions. In that respect, the Government was meeting its commitment to raise the issue of pending reforms again for discussion within the CES with a view to drafting a roadmap to enable further alignment of the Code with the Convention and achieve consensus. To that end, the necessary technical assistance and follow-up were once more requested from the Office. Honduras would continue to be a State that respected human rights and where the protection and promotion of those rights was central to all activities. He underlined the fact that the State and the ILO were fighting the same cause, given that they shared values and interests in their eagerness to continue making significant contributions to achieving the international objectives of equitable social justice and a better world of work.

The Employer members welcomed the information provided. With regard to trade union rights and civil liberties, they noted with appreciation the Government’s efforts to strengthen security institutions. However, further work needed to be done. They urged the Government to accelerate the investigation processes in order to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to provide the Committee of Experts with the results of the investigations and the sentences handed down. Concerning Article 2 et seq. of the Convention relating to the establishment, autonomy and activities of trade union organizations, it was necessary to reform the Labour Code, and bring it into line not only with the Convention but also with new forms of work. It was essential to establish tripartite social dialogue in order to finalize the pending legislative amendments, as had been done for the Labour Inspection Act, and to take into account the informal economy. Tripartite dialogue must be entered into in good faith, and did not necessarily ensure consensus. Needing consensus effectively conferred the power of veto, which was what had happened with the reforms of 1993 and 2014 when progress had been hindered by the trade union sector. The Government could not forsake its obligations. They urged the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance provided by the Office. However, given the time elapsed, deadlines needed to be set, before the next session of the Committee of Experts. They reiterated the request by the Employers’ group that the Committee’s conclusions should not refer to the right to strike.

The Worker members, responding to the comments made by the Employer members on the right to strike, reiterated that their position had not changed. The Convention protected the international right to strike. The right to strike was part of the right to freedom of association, which was a fundamental right, and which ensured that workers’ voices, too often ignored by governments and employers, were heard. The Government should follow the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts. Despite the diverging opinions on that matter in particular, the Worker members were continuing to work constructively towards the achievement of consensus-based conclusions, in line with the agreement with the Employers. The situation in the country was extremely serious (comparable to that in countries such as Guatemala and Colombia), with high levels of anti-union violence and almost total impunity for such crimes. It was necessary to resolve the situation immediately. The Government was blatantly and directly responsible for the acts of anti-union violence that had been carried out after the 2017 political elections, when dozens of civilians had been murdered by military and police personnel, and thousands had been injured, arrested, imprisoned or tortured by state officials, and nobody had been held responsible. The Government was incapable of tackling the cases of impunity and violence against trade unionists, and was participating in the widespread violation of human rights. It was impossible for workers to exercise their fundamental rights, knowing that the authorities went unpunished when they committed a murder. However, the case was not only concerned with anti-union violence. Workers did not have the possibility to exercise their right to freedom of association because of an inadequate Labour Code, a failing labour inspection system (as had been discussed in the Conference Committee in 2016), and a number of employers who broke the law knowing that they would go unpunished. The Worker members expressed their concern regarding the efforts to impede the establishment of trade unions, especially in agriculture, where anti-union discrimination was particularly rampant, including in melon and palm oil production. Workers in the garment industry also faced intense and illegal opposition from their employers, and were often dismissed for establishing trade unions. Such conditions led to an increase in violence. In conclusion, recalling that, for years, the Committee of Experts had observed that the labour legislation was not in conformity with the Convention, the Worker members requested the Government to immediately address, at the very least, priority reforms, by introducing the amendments drafted in collaboration with the social partners. Furthermore, they considered it necessary for an ILO high-level mission to visit the country to observe the progress made before the end of the year.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statement made by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee deplored the serious allegations of acts of anti-union violence, including physical aggression and murders, and the absence of convictions against those guilty of the crimes, which create a situation of impunity reinforcing the prevalent climate of violence and insecurity.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee called upon the Government to:

- take without delay all the necessary measures to ensure that the investigations into the murders are carried out promptly in order to determine the persons responsible and to punish those guilty of these crimes;

- provide rapid and effective protection to all trade union leaders and members who are under threat to ensure that the lives and physical integrity of persons are effectively protected and to implement measures to prevent further cases of trade union murders and violence;

- immediately conduct competent investigations into acts of anti-union violence and prosecute the persons responsible for those crimes;

- ensure that the relevant authorities have sufficient resources and personnel to undertake this work effectively; and

- take all the necessary measures to create an environment in which workers are able to exercise their right of freedom of association without the threat of violence or other violations of their civil liberties.

In consultation with the social partners, bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention as regards:

- the exclusion of workers’ organizations in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which do not permanently employ more than ten workers (section 2(1));

- the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise (section 472);

- the requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union (section 475); and

- the requirement that the officers of a trade union must be of Honduran nationality (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d)).

In this regard, the Committee calls on the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to address these conclusions. The Committee also asked the Government to report in detail on the measures taken to implement these conclusions to the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in November 2018. The Committee urges the Government to accept a direct contacts mission before the next International Labour Conference.

The Government representative expressed his Government’s willingness to work to ensure the success of the direct contacts mission that would visit the country, in accordance with the Committee’s conclusions, and to receive the requested ILO technical assistance. He reiterated that there was no policy whatsoever of anti-union persecution or violence by the State and that, in addition to the action already taken, about which the Committee had been informed, a follow-up and information group had been established in the Economic and Social Council (CES) on cases of trade union violence. He said, with respect to the reforms of the Labour Code, that they would be subject to further tripartite discussion within the CES, with ILO technical assistance, and that, if no agreement was reached, as had occurred in recent years, the Government’s draft reforms would be submitted to the National Congress with a view to bringing the national legislation into line with the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

The Government supplied the following information:

The Government is aware of the need to reform its Labour Code with a view to bringing it into conformity with ratified Conventions and social developments in this field. The Government's will as concerns these changes has been expressed by the President of the Republic on different occasions; this interest has been translated into the creation of a Special Commission, in which the Government's will to make these changes as well as all those which arise on a tripartite level to the extent possible, with the intent to secure agreement of all the interested sectors. The Government has at the same time implemented a project entitled "Modernisation and institutional reinforcement of the labour administration in support of the economic reorganisation programme", of which this Special Commission has knowledge. The objectives of this project correspond with those of the Special Commission. The Government nevertheless understands the Committee of Experts' preoccupation with the period of time - many years - which has elapsed since the Committee's first observation without the necessary amendments having been accomplished. The Government will continue to regularly inform the Committee of Experts on the progress which it has achieved.

In addition, a Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, referred to the enormous and serious problems faced by his country in all areas. He indicated that his Government generally encouraged dialogue and consultations in all sectors. Referring to the observations of the Committee of Experts he pointed out some contradictions that existed between certain articles of the Labour Code and the provisions of the Convention even though these contradictions might only relate to minor points. For example, it was a requirement to obtain the consent of a certain percentage of workers or, in some public enterprises, the approval of certain authorities before calling a strike. However, the right to strike was not prohibited. The Government has decided that the adoption of a new Labour Code or the substantial reform of the existing one should be based on and the product of consultations in the country as it was useless to legislate arbitrarily or adopt idealistic standards. In doing this it was necessary to take into account the suggestions of the Committee of Experts as well as the assistance offered by the ILO. Two very productive seminars, which helped bring out the initial cooperation required from the different sectors, were conducted. A tripartite committee chaired by the Deputy Minister of Labour has been established in order to change the structures of Honduran labour legislation and to follow up the comments of the Committee of Experts and its results would be seen in the course of this year. Finally, he indicated that the Government would be sending its observations along with conclusive evidence on the complaints pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association and expressed the desire to cooperate with the ILO as requested.

The Workers' members welcomed the information provided by the Minister concerning the setting up of a tripartite committee to advise on the changes that need to be made to the Labour Code to put it into full conformity with the Convention. They also welcomed the information about the Government's consultations with the ILO on these questions. While all these were encouraging developments, they recalled that the Committee of Experts had been making its comments on this question for many years now and no legislative measures have yet been adopted to amend the Labour Code. Referring to the strong language used by the Committee of Experts in its report, they emphasised to the Government the need for it to examine these comments, including the seven specific areas in which the Committee of Experts found the existing Labour Code to require amendments to bring it into line with the provisions of the Convention. In view of past long delays in this case, they strongly urged the Government to do its utmost to adopt legislative texts to amend the Labour Code as soon as possible as well as to ensure their full application in practice.

The Employers' members considered that the seven points figuring in the Committee of Experts' comments did not have the same weight. The ban on workers employed in small agricultural undertakings and stock-raising enterprises from joining a union, the ban on more than one union per enterprise, or the requirement that trade union leaders be engaged in the occupation or profession represented by the union for more than six months violated the very text of the Convention. The Employers' members were therefore in agreement with the comments made on these points by the Experts and considered, like them, that the Government should take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. They also expressed the hope that the Government would amend the legislation in the near future. However, the other points criticised by the Committee of Experts could not be directly based on the Convention. When the Convention was drawn up in 1948, the question of introducing the right to strike, for example, had not been retained in the text. The comments of the Committee of Experts on national legislation in relation to essential services and other aspects of the right to strike were not therefore founded on the Convention itself. As regards the legal requirement of a two-thirds majority of a union's general assembly for calling a strike, the Employers' members noted that, in many countries, the majority required for calling a strike was governed by legislation or through trade union statutes, and that in any case, when trade union statutes were silent on this point, it was for the State to determine the parameters since every strike involved some disruption. The definition of the required majority was a national question which had to be settled by the law and practice of the country. In the light of these considerations, the Employers' members did not share the Experts' opinion that the requirement of a two-thirds majority of a union's general assembly for calling a strike constituted a violation of a Convention.

The Workers' member of Honduras confirmed that a tripartite commission for the revision of the Labour Code had in fact been designated for bringing the Code into conformity with the Convention, along the lines of the comments of the Committee of Experts, but with one exception: the recommendation that more than one enterprise union be allowed to exist in the same enterprise, institution or establishment. In fact, compliance with this recommendation would open the doors in Honduras to the serious phenomenon of solidarist organisations, which some employers were trying to introduce to take over the activities belonging to trade union organisations. He indicated that, in 1991, the Confederation of Honduran Workers had signed a document with the President of the Republic in search of an immediate process for the revision of the Code so as to prevent the rise of solidarism. Subsequently, the employers' and workers' organisations had presented amendments along these lines to the competent authorities. Finally, he stressed that a final date should be fixed for completion of consultations on the various revisions of the Labour Code and stated that, if cooperation did not succeed, the Government would have to take the appropriate decisions.

The Government representative stated that the Government saw no problems with submitting the Committee of Experts' recommendations to Congress. He repeated his earlier statements on the need for cooperation which would lead to the processing of the reforms, because the contents of some of them could be subject to controversy between workers and employers.

The Committee took note of the information supplied by the Government. It welcomed the progress which was being made, in particular in relation to the reform of the Labour Code which was being prepared. However, it recalled that the Committee of Experts had been drawing the Government's attention to the legislative provisions requiring revision and yet until now such revision had not occurred. Consequently, the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would very rapidly be able to have the necessary reforms adopted and that it would send the relevant texts to the ILO.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

A Government representative, the Minister of Labour and Social Security, expressed appreciation for the excellent work done by the Committee of Experts. After mentioning the different points made by the Committee of Experts concerning the divergences between the Labour Code and some articles of Convention No. 87, he said that the social partners and the Government had set up a special commission which had been institutionalised by Executive Decree as the "Council for Social Cooperation" to replace the ad hoc committee set up on 20 August 1990 in accordance with the commitment made by the Minister of Labour and Social Security to the previous Conference. The Goverment, private enterprise and the workers, represented by the two main confederations in the country, were currently working towards reforming the Labour Code and social legislation to bring them into line with the socio-economic realities of Honduras and its international labour commitments. The two labour unions (CTH and GGT) and the United Workers' Federation had prepared a draft revised Labour Code which constituted an invaluable contribution to the legal effort. In Honduras, social cooperation between the Government, private enterprise and workers aimed to improve labour legislation in order to secure peace on the solid foundation of social justice, as called for by the ILO.

The Workers' members said that the Committee of Experts had repeated its previous comments because it had not received a report from the Government on the application of the Convention. Those comments referred to important points of the Labour code which were not in accordance with the Convention, and the Committee of Experts had stressed that the Government should take the necessary measures to rectify that situation. Furthermore, the Committee on Freedom of Association had recently received a complaint against the Government of Honduras (Case No. 1538) denouncing acts of violence against trade unionists. It was necessary to have good legislation but it was essential to put into practice the principles of freedom of association. The Government intended to change the legislation and had established a tripartite commission to that end, which was now engaged in discussing the relevant matters. Because the situation regarding both law and practice was very worrying, the Government should take rapid measures to speed up changing the legislation.

The Employers' members noted the goodwill expressed by the Minister of Labour but recalled that the present Committee had discussed the case in 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. Following the 1985 discussion, the Government had accepted a direct contacts mission which had led to several legislative changes. The present Committee had noted those changes in 1986 but had indicated that important problems still remained in relation to the application of the Convention. Those problems remained the same. The Employers' members noted their reservation on the definition of essential services applied by the Committee of Experts in the case of Honduras. Although the Minister of Labour had stated that the tripartite commission for the reform of the Labour Code had been established the previous year, the report of the present Committee stated that a tripartite commission had been set up in 1986. It appeared that nothing had happened during those five years. Had meetings been held? Notwithstanding the statements of the Government, the Committee should note with regret that those long standing problems had not been resolved. Perhaps the ILO might provide technical assistance in drawing up the draft Labour Code.

The Minister of Labour and Social Security stated that the acts of violence referred to by the Workers' members, of which there had been some cases, were not the fault of the Government. The policy of the present Government was to reform the Labour Code and labour legislation within the framework of national cooperation between the social partners and of dialogue with the President of the Republic and the Minister of Labour. Trade union rights, the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike were guaranteed. Article 18 of the draft new Labour Code provided that ILO Conventions and Recommendations should be applied as labour law in cases not covered by the legislation. The Government intended to accompany structural reforms of the economy wth immediate measures to meet the needs of workers; in that context, article 71 of the draft Labour Code allowed workers to request a wage review when economic changes took place in the country. The Government intended to establish new models to resolve the economic crisis and the other social problems.

The Committee took note of the information communicated by the Government and, in particular, the establishment ot a tripartite commission to study the comments of the committee of Experts. Bearing in mind the many important divergences between national legislation and the provisions of the Convention, which had been pointed out by the Committee of Experts for many years, and that the report of the Government to the Committee of Experts had contained nothing new, the Committee could not but express the hope that the Government would make every effort to adopt, in the near future, the appropriate measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted, so that next year it would be possible to record substantial progress both in law and in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments sent by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 28 August 2007 concerning the drawing up of a draft Act to reform the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes harsher penalties for actions on public thoroughfares (blockages of roads, bridges and streets, for example), which may affect the activities of trade unions, and concerning the detention of trade union members in the banking sector when they wished to participate in a wage claim. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that no reforms are under way to introduce tougher penalties for illicit meetings or demonstrations and that section 331 of the Penal Code concerning “street actions”, incorporated in the legislation by means of Decree No. 59-97 of 8 May 1997, remains in force. As regards the alleged detention of union members of the Banking Association for participating in a pay claim, the Government has no knowledge of the existence of that trade union and therefore considers it unlikely that the complaint referred to in the comment was brought before the Honduran courts. The Committee also notes the comments from the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) of 22 May 2008 on the application of the Convention. The COHEP also refers to the comments of the ITUC of 2007 and in particular the Committee notes its indication that it had no knowledge of the detention of union members belonging to the banking sector and gives the assurance that the Honduran Association of Banking Institutions (AHIBA) is unaware of and rejects such allegations.

Finally, the Committee notes the comments from the ITUC dated 26 August 2009 referring to pending legislative issues and also to the murder of the general secretary and another official of the Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CTH) on 24 April 2008, the murder of an official of the National Peasant Farmers’ Association of Honduras (ANACH) in May 2008, armed attacks against the president and vice-president of the AFL Workers’ Union of Honduras (SITRAFLH) and the raiding of the headquarters of the Single Workers’ Confederation of Honduras (CUTH) in September 2008. The Committee recalls that freedom of association can only be exercised in a situation in which fundamental human rights are respected and fully guaranteed, particularly with regard to human life and safety, and where there have been attacks on physical or psychological integrity, an independent judicial inquiry should be conducted without delay, as this is a particularly suitable method for fully determining the facts, attributing responsibility, penalizing the perpetrators and preventing the repetition of such actions. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

The Committee also notes the comments from COHEP dated 6 October 2009. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

The Committee recalls that it has been referring for a number of years to the need to reform various sections of the Labour Code in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee’s comments refer to:

–      the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and consequently from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which do not permanently employ more than ten workers (section 2(1));

–      the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472 of the Labour Code);

–      the requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union (section 475 of the Labour Code);

–      the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be of Honduran nationality (sections 510(a) and 541(a) of the Labour Code), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c) of the Labour Code) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d) of the Labour Code);

–      the following restrictions on the right to strike:

–          the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537 of the Labour Code). The Committee however notes the Government’s indication that in practice the CUTH, the General Federation of Workers (CGT) and the CTH have repeatedly called for collective suspension of work;

–          the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code);

–          the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in oil production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2) of the Labour Code);

–          the need for Government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code);

–          the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826 of the Labour Code).

The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it noted the drawing up of a draft Act to reform the Labour Code, which incorporated various amendments requested by the Committee. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it has been impossible to hold discussions on the reform of the Labour Code because of the strong opposition of the three major workers’ federations operating in the country. The Committee further notes the statement by COHEP that, although a preliminary draft reform of the Labour Code was drawn up in 1995 and was the product of social dialogue, it was not adopted and various preliminary drafts were drawn up without agreement being reached in the stricter tripartite context and are due to be discussed in the National Congress.

The Committee reminds the Government that it is responsible for ensuring the application of freely ratified international labour Conventions relating to freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention and trusts that all the issues highlighted by the Committee will be taken into account. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on all measures taken in this respect and reminds it that it may seek technical assistance from the Office.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments sent by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation) on 10 August 2006, which referred to issues of law that are currently under examination and the murder of Francisco Cruz Galeano, a trade union leader of the General Workers’ Confederation (CGT) in December 2005. With regard to the latter, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security has undertaken a full investigation through the competent bodies, which concluded that the trade union leader concerned was not murdered by reason of his position as a trade union leader, but was mistaken for the leader of a group of delinquents by two members of a rival group, of whom one was murdered in May 2006 and the other is on the run.

The Committee observes that for many years it has been referring to the need to reform the legislation so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its observation in 2005 it noted the preparation of a draft reform of the Labour Code, which included several amendments requested by the Committee, and which had been preceded by a tripartite study. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Economic and Social Council is envisaging in its plan of activities for the present year the harmonization of the Labour Code with international labour Conventions, thereby achieving consensus with the social partners. The Committee recalls that its comments referred to:

n      the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and consequently from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which do not permanently employ more than ten workers (section 2(1));

n      the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472 of the Labour Code);

n      the requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union (section 475 of the Labour Code);

n      the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be of Honduran nationality (sections 510(a) and 541(a) of the Labour Code), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c) of the Labour Code) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d) of the Labour Code);

n      the following restrictions on the right to strike:

–        the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537 of the Labour Code). The Committee however notes the Government’s indication that federations and confederations exercise this right without any interference by the State;

–        the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code);

–        the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in oil production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2) of the Labour Code);

–        the need for Government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code). In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision refers to services that are essential for society and is intended to offer the appropriate conciliation machinery to resolve disputes occurring in these sectors;

–        the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services that are not essential in the strict sense of the term, that is those the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826 of the Labour Code).

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the harmonization of the Labour Code with the Convention will be undertaken in the near future and that all the issues raised by the Committee will be taken into account. The Committee reminds the Government that the Office’s technical assistance is at its disposal.

Finally, the Committee notes the new comments by the ITUC, dated 28 August 2007, which refer to legislative issues that are still pending, as well as to the impossibility of establishing unions in export processing zones; the formulation by the President of a Bill to reform the Procedural Penal Code establishing more severe penalties for action on the public thoroughfare (blockages of roads, bridges and streets, for example), which may affect the activities of trade unions; obstacles to the establishment of trade unions, the promotion of unions by the management of private enterprises and the detention of union members in the banking sector when they wished to participate in a wage claim. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on these matters.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committed takes note of the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 10 August 2006, which largely concern issues of law and practice regarding the Convention which the Committee has already examined. It notes in particular the allegation that a trade union officer of the General Workers’ Confederation (CGT) was killed in December 2005.

The Committee reminds the Government in this connection that freedom of association cannot be exercised unless human rights are observed and fully safeguarded, particularly the right to life and personal safety. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to have the alleged killing investigated, and to keep the Committee informed on the matter.

The Committee requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to send for examination by the Committee at its next session, to be held in November‑December 2007, its comments on the other issues of law and practice pertaining to the Convention raised in the observation of 2005 (see 2005 observation, 76th Session).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and observes with interest that a draft reform of the Labour Code has been prepared which includes various modifications that the Committee has been requesting for a number of years, and that the preparation of the draft text was preceded by a study carried out on a tripartite basis.

The Committee recalls that for many years its comments have referred to:

–      The exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which do not permanently employ more than ten workers (section 2(1)). The Committee notes the Government’s indications that, even though the labour legislation is applicable to agricultural and stock-raising enterprises which permanently employ more than ten workers, it is fully aware of the need to amend the legislation. The Committee requests that the Government provide information in its next report on any amendment to the legislation adopted in this respect.

–      The prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472 of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication, that under the terms of the legislation, a branch or industry union can coexist with the enterprise or first-level union, which means that more than two trade unions of different levels can coexist, but that nevertheless in the draft amendment of the Labour Code the possibility is envisaged of the coexistence of more than one union of the same level in the same enterprise or workplace. The Committee requests that the Government provide information in its next report on any amendment to the Labour Code in this respect.

–      The requirement of more than 30 workers to establish a trade union (section 475 of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft reform of the Labour Code, which will soon be submitted to the Economic and Social Council (CES) for consultation, amends this provision, setting a lower number of workers for the establishment of a trade union. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any amendment adopted in this respect.

–      The requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be of Honduran nationality (sections 510(a) and 541(a) of the Labour Code), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c) of the Labour Code) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d) of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the labour legislation indeed establishes certain conditions which are discriminatory in the light of the Convention by limiting the right of foreign nationals to hold trade union office, or by establishing that officers of the trade union have to be engaged in the economic activity of the sector represented by the trade union, and that these matters are being envisaged in the draft reform of the Labour Code referred to above. The Committee hopes that in the context of this reform the requirement to be able to read and write to hold office in a trade union, federation or confederation will also be abolished and requests that the Government provide information on the amendments adopted on these matters.

–      The following restrictions on the right to strike:

n      the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537 of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) the draft reform, which is about to be the subject of consultation with workers and employers, envisages the elimination of this prohibition; and (2) federations and confederations have exercised the right to strike without it being declared unlawful by the Government. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the amendment adopted on this matter;

n      the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft reform of the Labour Code envisages establishing a simple majority of half plus one, calculated on the basis of the workers present at the assembly, in order to be able to call a strike. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any amendment in this respect;

n      the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in oil production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2) of the Labour Code); the need for Government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code); and the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826 of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these matters have been submitted for tripartite consultation and are awaiting discussion and approval in the context of the reform of the labour legislation. The Committee asks the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted to amend the provisions referred to above.

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been referring to the need to amend the legislation to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the amendments to the Labour Code referred to above will be undertaken in the near future and that the corresponding measures will be adopted to bring all the legislative provisions referred to above into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests that the Government provide information in its next report on the progress made in relation to the draft reform of the Labour Code. The Committee reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the Office is at its disposal.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and recalls that it has been commenting for many years on the following points:

-  the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises which do not permanently employ more than ten workers (section 2(1));

-  the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution, or establishment (section 472);

-  the requirement of more than 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475);

-  the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be of Honduran nationality (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d));

-  restrictions on the right to strike, namely:

n  the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537);

n  the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563);

n  the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in oil production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2));

n  the need for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558); and

n  the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826).

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 760 of 25 May 1979, which lifted the restriction that 90 per cent of the members of trade union organizations must be Honduran nationals, continues to be in force, but that the requirement to be a Honduran national remains for trade union leaders. With regard to the other issues, the Committee notes that in its latest report the Government confines itself in general to reiterating the indications provided in previous years. The Committee also notes that the tripartite consultations with a view to bringing certain aspects of the legislation into conformity with the Convention, to which the Government referred previously, have still not been held, and that they are at a preliminary stage. The Committee expresses the firm hope that they will be held in the near future and that the necessary measures will be taken to bring all of the legislative provisions commented upon into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of any preliminary draft text that is formulated and to provide information in its next report on any developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It recalls that it has been commenting for many years on the following points:

-  the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

-  the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

-  the requirement of more than 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475);

-  the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be Honduran (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d));

-  restrictions on the right to strike, namely:

▪  the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563);

▪  the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537);

▪  the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2));

▪  the need for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558); and

▪  the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826).

Exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from
the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in
certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1))

The Committee observes that, according to the Government, the exclusion provided for in the Labour Code applies only to farms which do not regularly employ more than ten workers. The Government nevertheless states that it is aware of the need to reform the law so as to cover all workers, including those employed on farms with fewer than ten regular workers. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention lays down the right for all workers to form free and independent organizations.

Prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise
institution or establishment (section 472)

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that the workers’ and employers’ organizations are of the view that for national legislation to allow the establishment of more than one union in an enterprise or institution is inappropriate since it detracts from the legitimacy of trade union representation and creates economic conflicts in the enterprise and the trade unions. The Committee points out, however, that Article 2 of Convention 87 states that workers and employers have the right to establish "organizations of their own choosing". This means that the law must not institutionalize a de facto monopoly. Furthermore, even in a situation where at some point all workers have agreed to have only one union, they should still remain free to form unions outside the established structures should they so wish.

Requirement of 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475)

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, both the workers and the Government are of the view that this provision allows regular changeover in trade union office and ensures that trade union organizations are representative. The Government nevertheless indicates that this provision will be examined in tripartite consultations in the forthcoming reform of the Labour Code. The Committee points out that to require a minimum membership in order to create an organization is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, but the number set must remain within reasonable limits so as not to obstruct the formation of organizations. In the Committee’s view, a minimum requirement of 30 workers is not conducive to the formation of trade unions in small and medium-sized enterprises.

Requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation, or confederation
must be Honduran (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the
corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able
to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d))

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the requirements laid down in the law ensure that trade union officials are able to carry out their functions vis-à-vis the other members and the organization. With regard to the requirement of Honduran nationality, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether Decree No. 760 of 25 May 1979, which abolished the restriction that 90 per cent of trade union members must be Honduran, is still in force. It points out once again that where provisions on the nationality of trade union officials are too strict, they run the risk of depriving some workers of the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. In the Committee’s view, national laws and regulations should allow foreign workers access to trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. As regards the requirement that they must be engaged in the corresponding activity, the Committee reiterates that this provision may impair the right of organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. It also involves the risk that employers might dismiss trade union officers, which would deprive them of their trade union office. It would be desirable to make the legislation more flexible, for example by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 117 and 118).

Restrictions on the right to strike:

-  With regard to the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537), the Committee recalls that, in accordance with Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention, workers’ organizations, as well as the federations and confederations that they have established or joined, have the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes.

-  With regard to the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization to call a strike (sections 495 and 563), the Committee notes that the Government again states its intention to hold tripartite consultations in the context of the forthcoming reform of the Labour Code.

-  With regard to the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2)), the need for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558) and the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826), the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the above provisions have been submitted to tripartite consultation in the context of the reform of the labour legislation.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the tripartite consultations will be held soon and that, in the very near future, the necessary steps will be taken to amend the abovementioned provisions in order to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to send a copy of any preliminary draft legislation and to inform it in its next report of any developments in this regard. The Committee reminds the Government that it may call upon the technical assistance of the Office.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and recalls that its previous comments referred to:

-  the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

-  the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

-  the requirement of more than 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475);

-  the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be Honduran (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d));

-  restrictions on the right to strike, namely:

-  the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563);

-  the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537);

-  the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2));

-  the need for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558); and

-  the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826).

Exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from
the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in
certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1))

The Committee regrets that the Government does not reply specifically to the comments that the Committee has made in previous years on this matter. The Committee therefore expresses the firm hope that in the near future this legal restriction will be abolished. In this respect, the Committee hopes that this amendment will be introduced in the context of the reform of the labour legislation to which the Government refers.

The prohibition of more than one trade union in a single
enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472)

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, from an economic and labour point of view, it is not appropriate for workers to establish two or more organizations in the same enterprise and that the representatives of workers and employers have been consulted on this matter and have themselves indicated that the existence of two or more organizations would lead to anarchy and duplication, as well as uncertainty among workers. The Committee recalls that Convention No. 87 envisages trade union pluralism, which should remain possible in all cases. The law should not therefore institutionalize a factual monopoly, even in a situation where it has been agreed to at some point by all workers. Indeed, the workers should still remain free to choose to set up unions outside the established structures, should they so wish (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 96).

Requirement of 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475)

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the above provision will be subject to tripartite consultation in the context of the forthcoming reforms of the Labour Code.

Requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or
confederation must be Honduran (sections 510(a) and 541(a)),
be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c))
and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d))

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the preliminary draft of the Labour Code has taken into account the observations made on many occasions on these matters. The Committee nevertheless notes that section 504, as amended by Decree No. 760 of 25 May 1979, removed the restriction that 90 per cent of trade union members must be of Honduran nationality, thereby securing for foreign nationals the right to join any trade union organization, but that it provides that foreign nationals shall not be eligible for trade union office. In this respect, the Committee points out that provisions on nationality which are too strict could deprive some workers of the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. In this respect, the Committee considers that the national legislation should allow foreign workers to take up trade union office, at least after a reasonable period of residence in the host country. With regard to the requirement to be engaged in the corresponding activity, the Committee also considers that this provision may infringe the right of organizations to elect representatives in full freedom, as well as running the risk that employers may dismiss trade union officers, which would deprive them of their trade union office. It would be desirable to make the legislation more flexible, either by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation concerned, or by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization (see General Survey, paragraphs 117 and 118).

Restrictions on the right to strike

-  With regard to the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537), the Committee recalls that, in accordance with Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention, workers’ organizations, as well as the federations and confederations that they have established or joined, have the right to organize their activities and to formulate their programmes.

-  With regard to the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization to call a strike (sections 495 and 563), the Committee notes the Government’s expression of its intention to hold tripartite consultations and that it will take into account the observations made by the Committee. The Committee hopes that the above observations and the outcome of the tripartite consultations on this matter will be taken into account in the context of the forthcoming reforms of the Labour Code.

-  With regard to the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2)), the need for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558) and the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), of collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826), the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the above provisions have been submitted to tripartite consultation in the context of the reforms to the labour legislation.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that in the very near future appropriate measures will be taken to amend the legislative provisions referred to above in order to bring them into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests that the Government provide copies of the preliminary draft texts mentioned and supply information in its next report on any developments in this respect. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the availability of ILO technical assistance.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been commenting on the following provisions of the Labour Code:

- the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code, and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention, of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

- the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

- the requirement of more than 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475);

- the requirement that trade union organizations must include more than 90 per cent Honduran membership (sections 475 and 504);

- the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be Honduran (sections 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (sections 510(d) and 541(d));

- restrictions on the right to strike, namely:

§ requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563);

§ the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537);

§ the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2));

§ the need for government authorization or a six-month period of notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558);

§ the submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), for collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826).

In this regard, the Committee regrets once again that the Government does not refer specifically in its report to the comments that it has been making for many years. The Committee once again expresses the strong hope that the Government will take measures without delay to amend the above legislative provisions so as to bring them into conformity with the requirements of the Convention and recalls that it may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office for this purpose. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted in this regard.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report. The Committee also notes the comments made by the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (SCWH) regarding the obstacles to the establishment of trade unions contained in the legislation.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments referred to the following provisions of the Labour Code:

-- the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code and thus from the rights and guarantees of the Convention of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

-- the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

-- the requirement of more than 30 workers to constitute a trade union (section 475);

-- the requirement that trade union organizations must include more than 90 per cent Honduran membership (sections 475 and 504);

-- the requirement that the officers of a trade union, federation or confederation must be Honduran (section 510(a) and 541(a)), be engaged in the corresponding activity (section 510(c) and 541(c)) and be able to read and write (section 510(d) and 541(d));

-- restrictions on the right to strike:

-- -- requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563);

-- -- ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537);

-- the power of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2));

-- the need for government authorization or a six-month notice for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558);

-- submission to compulsory arbitration, without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), for collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term (sections 554(2) and (7), 820 and 826).

In this connection, regretting that the Government in its report does not refer specifically to the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take measures without delay to amend the abovementioned legislative provisions, so as to bring them into conformity with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on all measures adopted in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report does not respond to the Committee's previous comments which referred to:

-- the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

-- the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

-- the requirement that trade union officers must be Honduran and be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(a) and (c) and 541(a) and (c), respectively);

-- restrictions on the right to strike, sections 495 and 563 (requirement of a two-third majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike), 537 (ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations), 555(2) (the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services), 558 (the need for government authorization for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State), and sections 820 and 826 in conjunction with section 554(2) and (7) (which establishes compulsory arbitration without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), for collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, such as transport services in general, and the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services, respectively).

The Committee had noted with interest that the preliminary draft text to reform the Labour Code of December 1995, prepared by the Tripartite Committee had taken the majority of the Committee's comments into consideration, namely:

-- the abolition of the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1)), section 2 of the preliminary draft;

-- the abolition of the requirement that trade union officers must be engaged in the corresponding occupation, and allows foreigners who have been resident in the country for at least five years to stand for election to trade union office (sections 510(a) and 541(c)), section 431(a) of the preliminary draft;

-- the reduction of the two-thirds majority vote of the total membership of the trade union organization required to declare a strike (sections 495 and 563) to a simple majority of the workers in the enterprise or trade union assembly, section 517(c) of the preliminary draft;

-- the abolition of the prohibition of strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537), section 448 of the preliminary draft;

-- the abolition of the restrictions in respect of the exercise of the right to strike relative to the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end a dispute in the petroleum production, refining, transport and distribution services (section 555(2)), and the requirement that any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State is subject to government authorization or six months' notice (section 558);

-- with regard to compulsory arbitration in the public service (section 820 of the Labour Code), the Committee had noted with interest that, in conformity with sections 521 and 502 of the preliminary draft, arbitration would only be applied in the event of a protracted dispute between workers and employers in the public services covered by section 529 of the preliminary draft, which, in the opinion of the executive power, are of vital importance to the life and safety of the population (subsection 9). Nevertheless, the Committee had regretted to note that the petroleum production, refining, transport, distribution and by-products services (subsection 7), which are not essential services "in the strict sense of the term" were included in the list of essential services;

-- with regard to "the services under all branches of activity of the public authority and any other branches which, in the opinion of the executive power, are of vital importance to the economy of the population, upon declaration of the President" (subsections 1 and 9), the Committee had considered that the general and broad drafting of these provisions could be interpreted in such a manner as to restrict the right to strike. The Committee is of the opinion that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 158). With regard to the services of vital importance to the economy of the population, the Committee had considered the prohibition of strikes could only be justified in a situation of acute national crisis.

The Committee had also noted with regret that the preliminary draft did not amend section 472 of the Labour Code in force, which prohibits the existence of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment.

In this respect, the Committee had again pointed out that although it is not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does require this diversity to remain possible in all cases. In fact, there is a fundamental difference between a trade union monopoly established or maintained by law on the one hand and, on the other, voluntary groupings of workers which occur because they wish to strengthen their bargaining position. The Committee had acknowledged that excessive proliferation of occupational organizations may weaken the trade union movement. None the less, trade union unity imposed by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid down in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 91).

In this connection, the Committee had considered that legislative provisions establishing the concept of the most representative trade unions are not in themselves contrary to the principle of freedom of association, provided that the determination of such organizations is based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse. Furthermore, the distinction should generally be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights -- for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining and consultation by the authorities. Where legislation provides for the recognition of a trade union in an enterprise as the exclusive bargaining agent, certain safeguards should be attached, such as the election of the representative organization by a majority vote of the employees in the bargaining unit concerned, the right of an organization, which in a previous election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 240).

Furthermore, the Committee had noted the Government's statement to the effect that the draft reform of the Labour Code is awaiting adoption. In this connection, bearing in mind that a direct contacts mission took place in 1986, the discussions in a number of sessions of the Conference Committee and the Office's technical assistance to the Government and the social partners in the preparation of the preliminary draft of the Labour Code, the Committee had hoped that the Labour Code had finally been adopted and that it had taken account of all the comments the Committee had been making for many years.

Moreover, the Committee recalls that the imposition of a precondition which provides that the establishment of a trade union requires 90 per cent of its members to be Honduran nationals (sections 475 and 500 of the Labour Code) is incompatible with the Convention. The Committee had also noted that whilst Decree No. 760 of May 1979 had amended the legislation in this respect, the above sections, which are contrary to the Convention, have been included in the Labour Code Bill of 1992. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to repeal the above provisions.

The Committee again requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to forward a copy of the new Labour Code as soon as it has been adopted.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments concerned:

- the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

- the prohibition of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

- the requirement that trade union officers must be Honduran and be engaged in the corresponding activity (sections 510(a) and (c) and 541(a) and (c), respectively);

- restrictions on the right to strike, sections 495 and 563 (requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization in order to call a strike), 537 (ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations), 555(2) (the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end disputes in services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum), 558 (the need for government authorization for any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State), and sections 820 and 826 in conjunction with section 554(2) and (7) (which establishes compulsory arbitration without the possibility of calling a strike for as long as the arbitration award is in force (two years), for collective disputes in public services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, such as transport services in general, and services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum, respectively).

The Committee notes with interest that the preliminary draft (December 1995) of the reform of the Labour Code prepared by the Tripartite Committee takes account of most of its comments:

- it eliminates the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1)), section 2 of the preliminary draft;

- it eliminates the requirement that trade union officers must be engaged in the corresponding occupation, and allows foreigners who have been resident in the country for at least five years to stand for election to trade union office (sections 510(a) and 541(c)), section 431(a) of the preliminary draft;

- it reduces the two-thirds majority of the votes of the total membership of the trade union organization required to declare a strike (sections 495 and 563) to a simple majority of the workers in the enterprise or trade union assembly section 517(c) of the preliminary draft;

- it eliminates the ban on strikes being called by federations and confederations (section 537), section 448 of the preliminary draft;

- it eliminates the restrictions on the right to strike constituted by the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end a dispute in services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum (section 555(2)), and by the requirement that any suspension or stoppage of work in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State is subject to government authorization or six months' notice (section 558);

- as concerns compulsory arbitration in the public service (section 820 of the Labour Code), the Committee notes with interest that, in conformity with sections 521 and 502 of the preliminary draft, arbitration will only be applied in the cases where there is a dispute between workers and employers in the public services covered by section 529 of the preliminary draft, which, in the opinion of the executive power, are of vital importance to the life and safety of the population (subsection 9). Nevertheless, the Committee regrets to note that included among the services in question are those for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petrol and its by-products (subsection 7), which are not essential services "in the strict sense of the term";

- as concerns the services under all branches of activity of the public authority and any other branches which, in the opinion of the executive power, are of vital importance to the economy of the population, upon declaration of the President (subsections 1 and 9), the Committee considers that the general and broad drafting of these provisions is susceptible to being interpreted in a manner which would unduly restrict the right to strike. The Committee is of the opinion that the prohibition of the right to strike in the public service should be limited to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 158). Finally, as concerns services of vital importance to the economy of the population, the Committee is of the opinion that strike bans can only be justified in situations of acute national crisis.

The Committee also notes with regret that the preliminary draft does not amend section 472 of the existing Code, which bans the existence of more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment.

The Committee wishes to point out once again in this connection that although it is not the purpose of the Convention to make trade union diversity an obligation, it does require this diversity to remain possible in all cases. There is a fundamental difference between a trade union monopoly established or maintained by law on the one hand and, on the other, voluntary groupings of workers which occur because they wish to strengthen their bargaining position. The Committee has acknowledged that excessive proliferation of occupational organizations can weaken the trade union movement. None the less, trade union unity imposed by law runs counter to the standards expressly laid in the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 91).

In this connection, the Committee believes that legislative provisions establishing the concept of the most representative trade unions are not in themselves contrary to the principle of freedom of association, provided that the determination of such organizations is based on objective and pre-established criteria so as to avoid any possibility of bias or abuse. Furthermore, the distinction should generally be limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights - for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining and consultation by the authorities. Where legislation provides for recognition of an enterprise union as an exclusive bargaining agent, certain safeguards should be attached, such as the election of the representative organization by a majority vote of the employees in the bargaining unit concerned, the right of an organization, which in a previous election failed to secure a sufficiently large number of votes, to request a new election after a stipulated period (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 240).

Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the draft reform of the Labour Code is awaiting adoption. In this connection, bearing in mind the direct contacts mission carried out in 1986, the discussions in a number of sessions of the Conference Committee and the Office's technical assistance to the Government and the social partners in the preparation of the preliminary draft of the Labour Code, the Committee hopes that the Code will now be adopted and that it takes account of all the comments the Committee has been making for many years.

The Committee again requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this connection and to send a copy of the new Code as soon as it has been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report and recalls that its previous comments concerned:

-- the exclusion from the scope of the Labour Code of workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises (section 2(1));

-- the prohibition on more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment (section 472);

-- the requirement that trade union officers must be Honduran and be engaged in the corresponding occupation (sections 510(a) and 541(c), respectively);

-- restrictions on the right to strike (sections 495, 537, 555, 558 and 563).

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that since the new President has taken office, the Minister of Labour has, as a matter of urgency, submitted to the competent authority the reform of the Labour Code now being drafted as part of the modernization and strengthening of the State.

The Committee again expresses the hope that the new Labour Code takes account of the comments that the Committee has been making for many years, and that it will be adopted in the near future.

The Committee again asks the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect and to provide a copy of the new Code as soon as it has been adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee regrets to note that the Government's report has not been received, but notes the debates that took place at the Conference committee in 1992.

The Committee recalls that the following provisions of the Labour Code are not consistent with the Convention:

- section 2(1) which excludes from the scope of the Code workers in certain agricultural or stock-raising enterprises;

- section 472 which prohibits more than one trade union in a single enterprise, institution or establishment;

- sections 510 and 541 which establish certain requirements for eligibility to trade union office, such as Honduran nationality (subsection (a)), and being engaged in the corresponding occupation (subsection (c));

- sections 495, 537, 555, 558 and 563 which impose restrictions on the right to strike;

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government at the Conference committee in 1992 to the effect that the adoption of a new Labour Code or a substantial reform of the existing one will be the result of tripartite consultations, and that account will be taken of the comments of the Committee of Experts and that technical assistance from the ILO will be considered.

The Committee once again expresses the hope that the reform of the Labour Code will be adopted, in order to bring the legislation into line with the provisions of the Convention thereby eliminating the discrepancies that the Committee has been pointing out for many years.

The Committee asks the Government to inform it of any developments in this respect and reiterates that technical assistance may be requested from the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report and the discussions that took place at the Conference Committee in 1991.

The Committee wishes to remind the Government of the sections of the Labour Code which must be amended in order to bring them into conformity with the Convention:

- the amendment of section 2 of the Labour Code, so as to extend the right to join trade unions expressly to workers in agricultural or stock-raising enterprises not regularly employing more than ten workers, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention;

- the amendment of section 472 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 2 in not permitting the existence in a given enterprise, institution or establishment of more than one works union and in providing that, where there is already more than one union, only the one with the greatest number of members shall remain in existence;

- the amendment of section 510 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 3, in requiring that union officers shall, at the moment of election, be normally engaged in the occupational function characteristic of the union and have exercised it for more than six months during the preceding year;

- the alignment of section 537 of the Code with Article 6, which provides that federations and confederations are not entitled to call strikes, and section 541, which provides that the leaders of federations and confederations shall have been engaged in the corresponding occupation or function for more than one year before election;

- the amendment of provisions that require a majority of two-thirds at the general assembly of a trade union in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code);

- the need for government authorisation or six months' notice for any suspension or work stoppage in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code). This provision is open to criticism in so far as it applies to certain services - such as transport or services connected with petroleum - that are not essential in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

- the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end a dispute between employers and workers on the application of either party in services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum (section 555(2) of the Code).

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the first meeting of the Seminar on the reform of the Labour Code attended by delegates from the trade union organisations, representatives of the Honduran Private Enterprise Council and directors-general of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; and the creation of the project "Modernisation and institutional reinforcement of the labour administration in support of the economic reorganisation programme", whose objectives are: to modernise, update and develop labour legislation so that it is more consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of 1982 and ratified international labour Conventions.

However, the Committee regrets that, although it has been pointing out to the Government for many years that a number of provisions of the existing Labour Code require amendment so as to bring them into line with the provisions of the Convention, the necessary reforms have still not been carried out.

Accordingly, the Committee cannot but trust that the Government will examine its observations carefully and reiterates the firm hope that it will take the necessary measures to give full effect to the Convention, and it again asks the Government to report any developments in this respect.

[The Government is asked to supply fully particulars at the 79th Session of the Conference.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government has confined itself to sending a copy of its report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988. The Committee also regrets that the Government has not considered the observation made by the Committee at its March 1989 Session. The Committee is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee once again recalls that various points in the Labour Code in force need to be amended in order to bring them into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, namely: - the amendment of section 2 of the Labour Code, so as to extend the right to join trade unions expressly to workers in agricultural or stock-raising enterprises not regularly employing more than ten workers, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention; - the amendment of section 472 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 2 of the Convention in not permitting the existence in a given enterprise, institution or establishment of more than one works union and in providing that, where there is already more than one union, only the one with the greatest number of members shall remain in existence; - the amendment of section 510 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 3 in requiring that union officers shall, at the moment of election, be normally engaged in the occupational function characteristic of the union and have exercised it for more than six months during the preceding year; - the bringing into conformity with Article 6 of section 537 of the Code, which provides that federations and confederations are not entitled to call strikes, and section 541, which provides that the leaders of federations and confederations shall have been engaged in the corresponding occupation or function for more than one year before election; - the amendment of provisions that require a majority of two-thirds at the general assembly of a trade union in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code); - the need for government authorisation or six months' notice for any suspension or work stoppage in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code). This provision is open to criticism in so far as it applies to certain services - such as transport or services connected with petroleum - that are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; - the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end a dispute between employers and workers on the application of either party in services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum (section 555(2) of the Code). Since the Government reiterates in its report that it convened a tripartite commission of representative organisations of employers (the Honduran Private Enterprise Council - COHEP) and of workers (Confederation of Workers of Honduras - CTH, and the National Workers' Federation of Honduras - FESITRANH) in order to consider its observations, the Committee is bound to trust that the Government will examine attentively the observations that it has made and once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to give full effect to the Convention and requests it to report any progress achieved in this respect.

REQUESTS

The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session and to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1991. #CONFERENCE_SESSION:78 #REPORT_DATE:30:06:1991

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988.

The Committee recalls that its previous observations once again noted that various points in the Labour Code in force needed to be amended in order to bring them into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, namely:

- the amendment of section 2 of the Labour Code, so as to extend the right to join trade unions expressly to workers in agricultural or stock-raising enterprises not regularly employing more than ten workers, with a view to bringing this provision into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention;

- the amendment of section 472 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 2 of the Convention in not permitting the existence in a given enterprise, institution or establishment of more than one works union and in providing that, where there is already more than one union, only the one with the greatest number of members shall remain in existence;

- the amendment of section 510 of the Labour Code, which is inconsistent with Article 3 in requiring that union officers shall, at the moment of election, be normally engaged in the occupation or function characteristic of the union and have exercised it for more than six months during the preceding year;

- the bringing into conformity with Article 6 of section 537 of the Code, which provides that federations and confederations are not entitled to call strikes, and section 541, which provides that the leaders of federations and confederations shall have been engaged in the corresponding occupation or function for more than one year before election;

- the amendment of provisions that require a majority of two-thirds at the general assembly of a trade union in order to call a strike (sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code);

- the need for government authorisation or six months' notice for any suspension or work stoppage in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State (section 558 of the Labour Code). This provision is open to criticism in so far as it applies to certain services - such as transport or services connected with petroleum - that are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population;

- the power of the Minister of Labour and Social Security to end a dispute between employers and workers on the application of either party in services for the production, refining, transport and distribution of petroleum (section 555(2) of the Code).

The Committee also notes the information in the Government's report that it convened a tripartite commission of representative organisations of employers (the Honduran Private Enterprise Council - COHEP) and of workers (Confederation of Workers of Honduras - CTH and the National Workers' Federation of Honduras - FESITRANH) in order to consider the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The Government's report indicates that, with regard to the amendment of section 2 of the Labour Code in order to bring it into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention, the parties left this point in suspense until they reached an agreement between themselves. As for the observation regarding section 472 of the Labour Code, the Government reports that there was consensus between the parties to retain this section in force since, according to the Government, when the Labour Code was drafted, the organisations of workers and employers demanded this provision, in view of the fact that the financial structure of enterprises in Honduras was and remains limited and aspirations to human advancement could be illusory if a multiplicity of workers' organisation with differing aims and interests competed in collective bargaining, and this resulted in section 472. With regard to section 510 of the Labour Code, the Government points out that this was analysed with great care, particularly by the trade union representatives, who opposed its amendment. There was also opposition to the amendment of sections 537 and 541 of the Labour Code, which are contrary to Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government requests clarifications on the amendments to sections 495, 563 and 558 and, finally, indicates that there was agreement on a new formulation for section 555(2) of the Labour Code.

The Committee notes these statements and is bound to recall that it has been pointing out the need to amend sections 2, 472, 510, 537, 541 and 555(2) of the Labour Code since 1971.

With regard to sections 495 and 563 of the Labour Code (the requirement for a two-thirds majority in the general assembly of a trade union to call a strike), the Committee recalls that legislative restrictions on the right to strike should not be such as to make it impossible to call a strike in practice. A simple majority of voters (excluding workers who have not participated in the vote) of a particular negotiating unit should be sufficient to be able to call a strike.

With regard to section 558 (the need for government authorisation or six months' notice for any suspension or work stoppage in public services that do not depend directly or indirectly on the State), the Committee reiterates its observation of 1986 on this point, namely, that this provision is open to criticism in so far as it applies to certain services - such as transport or services connected with petroleum - that are not essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is to say, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population.

The Committee regrets that the Government's report does not contain information on the situation regarding the draft Labour Code of 1981, which has been the subject of observations by this Committee (see, in this connection, the observation of 1986 by the Committee of Experts). It also regrets that there has been no progress regarding the points in the current labour legislation which are not in full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the Government will examine attentively the observations that it has made and expresses the firm hope, once again, that it will take the necessary measures to give full effect to the Convention and requests it to report any progress achieved in this respect. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 76th Session.]