Definitive Report - Report No 110, 1969

1. 17. The Committee examined this case at its meetings in May 1966, February 1967 and November 1968, when it submitted to the Governing Body three interim reports contained, respectively, in paragraphs 176 to 208 of the Committee's 92nd Report, in paragraphs 205 to 237 of its 95th Report and in paragraphs 154 to 163 of its 108th Report.
2. 18. Honduras has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Strike by the Rio Lindo Textile Mill Workers' Union
  19. 19 These allegations referred to a strike being declared illegal on the grounds that the prior conciliation procedure, as laid down in the Labour Code of Honduras, had not been followed. The Code provides that conciliation must be effected by the conciliation and arbitration boards, whose members are appointed-in accordance with section 663-by agreement between employers and workers in the industrial or occupational branch concerned. In the case of the dispute raised by the Rio Lindo Textile Mill Workers' Union, according to information submitted by the Government, the conciliation and arbitration board had not been set up in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned section. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare had ordered an ad hoc conciliation board to be set up. The High Court, however, granting an appeal made by the employer, gave a judgment against this decision. The trade union then decided to call a strike, without the prior formalities required by law having been complied with, and this strike was declared illegal by government decision.
  20. 20 In examining this case in its 92nd Report, the Committee recalled that it has always maintained that allegations relating to the right to strike are within its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights; it recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it has always attached to the principle that, when temporary restrictions are placed on the right to strike such as, for example, during conciliation and arbitration proceedings, such proceedings should be adequate, impartial and speedy. At the same time it recommended that the Government be requested to supply the text of the amendments to sections 650 and 651 of the Labour Code. The Government had stated that these sections would be amended in order to avoid a repetition of such situations.
  21. 21 In its 95th Report the Committee examined this new legislation and noted that it appeared from the preambular clauses thereof that considerations of an economic character had prevented a conciliation and arbitration board from being set up previously. The Committee found on that occasion that the amended clauses had no bearing upon section 663, under which it was impossible to appoint an ad hoc board to intervene in the dispute in question, as the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare had wished. Moreover, the Government had not stated whether in the meantime the conciliation and arbitration boards provided for in the legislation had been set up.
  22. 22 Consequently, upon the Committee's recommendation, the Governing Body requested the Government to specify what measures it had taken or intended to take to set up the conciliation and arbitration boards whose intervention was necessary according to the law before a strike could lawfully be declared. Not having received the information requested, the Committee decided, at its meeting in November 1968, to repeat the previous request.
  23. 23 The Government replied by a communication dated 30 December 1968, in which it stated that by resolution No. 221 of 7 October 1967 it had approved the Regulations governing the appointment of workers' and employers' representatives to conciliation and arbitration boards. On 10 October 1967, in accordance with sections 649, 653 and 663 of the Labour Code, workers and employers in the Departments of Francisco Morazán and Cortés were invited to appoint delegates to a meeting to be held on 18 November 1967 at which representatives to the permanent departmental conciliation and arbitration boards were to be elected. Notice of this invitation was given in the press and by means of circulars to the workers' and employers' organisations. Information on the procedure to be followed in electing the representatives was communicated in another circular. On 2 January 1968 the membership of the Cortés Departmental Board was approved and its standing orders were approved on 1 February of the same year.
  24. 24 The Government went on to state that employers' and workers' organisations in the Department of Francisco Morazán had not attended the meeting, thereby demonstrating their lack of interest in contributing towards a peaceful and harmonious settlement of labour disputes. Moreover, although the Cortés Departmental Board had been constituted, it had in fact done no useful work and the few labour disputes that had occurred had been settled by direct agreement between the parties or by mediation. In a few exceptional cases special conciliation boards had been set up under sections 650 and 651, as amended, of the Labour Code. With its communication the Government supplied the text of the various legal provisions to which it referred and stated that experience so far led it to consider that the amendments of sections 650 and 651 of the Labour Code were sufficient to settle any labour disputes that might arise.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 25. The Committee observes that, since the employers' and workers' organisations did not attend the meeting convened to elect members of the permanent conciliation and arbitration board of the Department of Francisco Morazán, this body has apparently not been set up. Nevertheless, the Committee also notes that, in accordance with section 20 of the above-mentioned Regulations governing the appointment of workers' and employers' representatives to conciliation and arbitration boards, approved by government decision in compliance with section 663 of the Labour Code, if for any reason the meeting does not take place or is not attended by the majority of workers' or employers' delegates, or by both at the same time, the parties concerned will be deemed to have conferred their powers on the government delegate to elect representatives to the boards, or else the election will be undertaken by the minority present. The Committee cannot help emphasising the importance which the application of this provision seems to have in view of the role attributed by law to the conciliation and arbitration boards in undertaking the procedure which is a prerequisite to the declaration of a lawful strike.
2. 26. Furthermore the Committee recalls that in accordance with section 651 of the Labour Code, as amended, special conciliation and arbitration boards can be set up on a non-permanent basis, merely functioning when necessary if disputes arise in some of the different branches of industry or groups of occupations. It appears from the Government's communication that special boards of this kind have been set up on certain occasions. In this connection the Committee notes a further element, namely that in accordance with section 22 of the above-mentioned Regulations, this text also governs the special boards affected, in that their members can be appointed directly by the government delegate when complications arise with regard to the meeting at which such members should be elected. The Committee therefore considers that there is thus an additional means of setting up conciliation and arbitration boards which may participate in the procedure to be followed prior to the calling of a lawful strike.