Interim Report - Report No 236, November 1984

1. 603. The João Monlevade Metalworkers' Union submitted a complaint of violation of freedom of association against the Government of Brazil in communications dated 23 March, 18 May, 11 and 19 June 1984. The Unitarian Workers' Federation associated itself with this complaint in a communication of 25 May 1984, as did the World Confederation of Labour in communications dated 19 June and 20 August 1984. For its part, the Government sent a partial reply on this case in a letter dated 6 August 1984.
2. 604. Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 605. The complainants explain that, in the past, it was possible to settle labour disputes through collective bargaining in the iron and steel undertaking, Belgo Mineira, a subsidiary of a multinational enterprise of which the headquarters is in Luxembourg and which is represented in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy; however, in 1983, there was severe social tension within the undertaking. The management adopted a very hard line during discussions on the renewal of the collective labour agreement. It refused to discuss the trade union proposals and then went on to dismiss 192 workers in May 1983, claiming that these dismissals were the direct outcome of the trade union's uncompromising stand. However, the complainants explain, in February 1983, the management had proposed that the trade union accept wage cuts of 50 per cent, in spite of the fact that annual inflation was as high as 230 per cent; the trade union had refused this proposal, since the undertaking had just increased its dividends.
   • Furthermore, in June 1983, the management had withdrawn the payment of time off for trade union leaders, whereas this right had been acquired by the trade union for more than 20 years. It had also refused to deduct trade union dues from the workers' pay slips on the pretext that this operation would be costly.
2. 606. The complainants state that the workers retaliated by taking strike action on 3 October 1983 and that the labour court had refused, on 10 October 1983, to declare it illegal as requested by the management. In addition, the court had also ordered the undertaking to fulfil some union claims, but the dismissed workers were not reinstated and most of the trade union claims were not satisfied. In spite of this, the workers went back to work.
3. 607. Several weeks later, the management started putting pressure once again on the workers. In some sectors, for example, additional pay for night work, established by collective agreement, was simply abolished. The workers lodged a complaint with the labour court, but the management summoned them individually to force them to sign a declaration in which they agreed to withdraw their complaint and give up the additional pay for night work. Few workers yielded to this pressure. The management used the same coercive methods when it decided to increase tenfold the price of meals. Meanwhile, the works canteen was closed and its staff dismissed. Furthermore, contrary to signed agreements providing for a minimum wage upon recruitment, the undertaking started to hire new workers for a wage three times less than that stipulated in the collective agreements, provided that they did not join the trade union, which even Brazilian labour legislation does not authorise. Finally, various measures were aimed personally at officials of the metalworkers' union, such as transfer, removal to a lower position and even dismissal. Two of those concerned lodged a complaint with the labour court and won their case. According to the complainants, this list is not complete.
4. 608. Whilst these incidents were taking place, the Metalworkers' Union of Monlevade convened a general assembly on 13 January 1984, when it was decided to initiate the procedure for calling a strike.
   • A later general assembly was to be convened to decide, in accordance with the strike legislation, to give the order to strike; however, the second assembly was not convened immediately because, the trade union still wished to give the negotiations a chance to succeed. Finally, the date of the strike was fixed for 8 March 1984; meanwhile, however, the tension had become so great that, on 27 February 1984, the workers spontaneously stopped work. The management immediately gave notice of 98 new dismissals. The Metalworkers' Union maintained that these were workers who had participated in the strike action. The management then ordered the engineers and foremen to go and requisition workers at their homes and to threaten them with dismissal if they refused to start work again. The wives of those workers who were not at home were forced to accompany them in the car to go and look for them. However, these attempts failed.
5. 609. In view of the strong pressure brought to bear by the management, it was decided that the strike pickets would remain in their place day and night to supervise the entrances to the factory.
   • The management responded to this decision by stepping up its pressure even more. It ordered the foremen to intimidate members of the workers' families unceasingly. Cars patrolled at 3 a.m. and those workers who refused to be picked up were to be dismissed forthwith.
   • The management placed loudspeakers at the factory entrances to call out the strike pickets by their name and threatened them with dismissal. Finally, 106 workers yielded to this pressure. They were escorted by the police to the undertaking where they had to remain for 20 hours.
6. 610. According to the complainants, on 29 February, representatives from the Ministry of Labour made an attempt at conciliating the parties to the dispute. The management of Belgo Mineira denied that it had threatened the workers and refused to open discussions with the Metalworkers' Union before an end to the strike was called. The representative of the Ministry of Labour then suggested that the union should resume work under two conditions. that coercive measures should cease within the undertaking and that an inquiry should be carried out by the labour inspectorate concerning violations of legislation, regulations and collective agreements in force in the undertaking. The trade union accepted this proposal and work began again on 1 March. However, the management did not stop harassing the workers and the Metalworkers' Union of Monlevade, as proved by later developments:
   • - only an urgent appeal from the Federal State Governor enabled the trade union to avoid 426 new dismissals on the very day that work was resumed;
   • - at present, the management claims that it no longer wishes to discuss with the trade union representatives, but only with a delegation of workers that it intends setting up itself;
   • - the management is attempting to pursuade the engineers and foremen to make statements incriminating the trade union. The statements are then submitted to the judicial authorities, with whom a complaint has been lodged to try and have the strike from 27 February to 1 March 1984 declared illegal;
   • - the foremen belonging to the trade union are being subjected to pressure so that they give up their membership: they are sent a preprinted letter of notice, of which one copy must be sent to the trade union and the other to the undertaking;
   • - the management is attempting to hinder the labour inspectorate's inquiry: it has sent a telegram threatening the officials concerned and has put pressure on workers to prevent them from making any statement.
7. 611. In concluding, the complainants point out that in January and February 1984, the local radio station went to great lengths to discredit the trade union. They therefore request the ILO to use the means at its disposal to require that in Brazil the management of this undertaking adopts a more respectful approach towards freedom of association and that it renounces its policy of confrontation with the trade union and its attempts to get rid of it.
8. 612. Furthermore, the Unitarian Workers' Federation refers especially to the fact that several trade unions have been placed under official supervision following the strike action of June 1983; this has been examined within the framework of Case No. 1225. [See paragraphs 303 to 315 of the present report.]

B. The Government's reply

1. 613. In its reply of 6 August 1984, the Government states that the regional labour delegation of the State of Minas Gerais, acting upon the complaint of the trade union in question and upon the request of the Labour Relations Secretariat of the Ministry of Labour, went to the undertaking itself to try and bring the parties to make mutual concessions and persuade them to resume discussions and return to the negotiating table.
2. 614. The Labour Relations Secretariat is continuing its activities along these lines, with a view to bringing about the reconciliation of the opposing parties, adds the Government. Indeed, thanks to this governmental inquiry, some situations have been normalised and others have been clarified.
3. 615. The Government points out that issues pertaining to labour law and the adherence to collective agreements fall within the competence of the judiciary, as long as the collective agreements are in force. It points out that when these agreements expire, the management of undertakings may, as no new collective agreement has been signed, do away with some of the advantages provided for in the previous agreement. For instance, in the present case, paid time off for trade union officials was abolished in view of the fact that under section 543, paragraph 2, of the Consolidation of Labour Laws, any period for which an employee absents himself from work for the performance of trade union duties is treated as unpaid leave, unless the employer gives permission or the case is covered by a clause in the contract. The Government also points out that the right to join or not to join a trade union is free in Brazil. Therefore, a worker may not be prevented from exercising his right. Indeed, in accordance with section 543, paragraph 6, of the above-mentioned Act, any undertaking endeavouring in any manner to prevent an employee from joining or forming an industrial association or from exercising his rights as a member of such an association is liable to penalties and the employee may be entitled to compensation.
4. 616. With respect to the check-off of trade union dues, this must be carried out by the employer once it has been authorised by the employees. Inquiries are at present being made to ascertain whether the undertaking failed to make these deductions and whether this was at the employer's instigation.
5. 617. In concluding, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour is committed to encouraging discussions between the parties, a requirement of the utmost importance in settling the present issue.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 618. The Committee notes that the labour dispute in the iron and steel undertaking of Minas Gerais, Belgo Mineira, seems to have taken place in three stages. In the beginning, the management allegedly.
   • - dismissed 192 workers in the month of May 1983, after having proposed to the trade union, in February 1983, considerable cuts in their wages at a time when the undertaking was increasing its dividends;
   • - did away with the payment of time off, whereas this right had been acquired for more than 20 years;
   • - refused to deduct trade union dues from workers' pay slips, on the pretext that this would be a costly operation;
   • - refused to renew the collective agreement which expired in the month of October 1983.
     • During the second stage of the dispute, as retaliation against the legal protest strike declared by the workers as from 3 October 1983, the management allegedly.
   • - abolished the payment of overtime for night work in some sectors and brought pressure to bear on the workers concerned to prevent them from lodging a complaint;
   • - recruited new workers at a lower wage, forbidding them to join the trade union;
   • - transferred or dismissed trade union officials;
   • - dismissed 98 workers, at the beginning of 1984, who had allegedly taken part in the strike;
   • - requisitioned striking workers and threatened to dismiss the strike pickets;
   • - brought pressure to bear on the engineers and foremen so that they give up their trade union membership.
     • During a third stage, faced with a new strike from 27 February to 1 March 1984, the management allegedly tried to have it declared illegal and to negotiate with workers not belonging to the trade union, excluding trade union representatives. At the same time, it allegedly hindered the work of the labour inspector who had been sent on the spot to make inquiries.
   • 619. The Committee notes that the Government does not deny the development of this labour dispute. On the contrary, it states that it attempted to set itself up as mediator to help the parties in reaching a solution. The Committee notes the Government's explanations concerning the non-payment of time off for trade union activities. It also notes the Government's assurance that no one, under Brazilian law, may be deprived of his right to join a trade union. It also notes that the employer must deduct trade union dues from the workers' pay slips if the trade union has requested this and that the Government is attempting to ascertain if Brazilian law in this respect has been infringed.
2. 620. The Committee nevertheless notes with regret that the Government does not provide any information on several grievances raised by the complainants, in particular the dismissal of workers having taken part in strike action and of union officials, the requisitioning of strikers and threats of dismissal against strike pickets, the recruitment of new workers at a lower wage and bans on trade union membership. With respect to these various allegations, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the dangers inherent in these alleged acts for freedom of association. It also considers that these acts restrict the legitimate exercise of the right to strike. It therefore insists that the requisitioning of strikers, the threats of dismissal of strike pickets, the recruitment of underpaid workers and bans on joining a trade union in order to break up lawful and peaceful strikes in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, which is the case of the iron and steel industry, are not in accordance with freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to inform it of measures taken or envisaged to bring about the reinstatement of workers and trade union officials unduly dismissed and to ensure that Brazilian legislation guaranteeing workers the right to join a trade union is respected.
3. 621. Finally, the Committee, in view of the alleged refusal of the management to renew the collective agreement and its attempts to negotiate with workers not belonging to a union, whilst excluding the workers' representatives, recalls the importance it attaches to the fact that the development of procedural rules agreed upon between employers' and workers' organisations should be encouraged and that measures should be taken to promote voluntary collective bargaining with workers' representatives. The Committee stresses, of course, that these measures should not be drawn up or applied in such a way as to encroach upon the freedom of collective bargaining. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to communicate information on the reasons for the employers' refusal to negotiate and on the developments in this labour dispute.