Definitive Report - Report No 254, March 1988

1. 164. The Union of Pilots of the Venezuelan International Aviation Corporation (OSPV) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association on 22 September 1986. Subsequently, on 16 January, 17 February and 21 May 1987, it provided additional information.
2. 165. The Government sent information on the matter in letters dated 24 April, 6 May and 16 and 23 October 1987 and 11 February 1988.
3. 166. Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 167. The OSPV states that on 16 July 1986, the Ministry of Labour, acting through a labour inspector, ordered the suspension of the members of the OSPV executive committee, who were also prevented from having access to the premises of the Venezuelan International Aviation Corporation (VIASA). This State Corporation, the complainant adds, employs 2,800 persons who are members of one or other of five unions, including the OSPV.
2. 168. OSPV states that it is made up of 222 pilots and is affiliated to the Venezuelan Federation of Professional Air Pilots' Unions and to the Spanish-American Association of Pilots. It explains the facts as follows: VIASA had programmed flights for 9, 10 and 11 July 1986, but on the 9th the captain of one aircraft noted that his second-in-command did not hold a certificate of basic training in hangar technique (there is a statutory requirement that this must be obtained afresh every 12 months); two officers responsible for the supervision of the whole air fleet cancelled the flight with the agreement of the deputy chief pilot, who sent the crew members home because their flight was called off for technical reasons. The complainant explains that the same situation arose for the following flights, which were consequently cancelled by the employer.
3. 169. OSPV continues as follows: on 10 and 11 July the situation remained unchanged, but on the 12th, captains of aircraft learned - on the strength of a telegram sent by the Ministry of Transport and Communications to the VIASA Director of Operations on the previous day - that they were relieved of any liability because, in the Ministry's view, failure to possess the certificate in question did not constitute violation of air safety standards. According to the complainant, the telegram had not been immediately sent on to the crews; the pilots, however, obeyed their orders as soon as these were received and - although they did not share the Ministry's view - operations were resumed.
4. 170. OSPV explains further that, during the same period, VIASA asked the Ministry of Labour to suspend the members of the Union's executive committee and, on 16 July 1986, the said Ministry ordered their suspension without giving any justification. OSPV states that in fact VIASA had asked the labour inspector, at 12 noon on 11 July, to declare that the stoppage of its normal operations was unlawful and the inspector made this declaration at 3 p.m. on the same day. OSPV points out that it appealed against the two decisions on 17 July but the Ministry gave negative decisions. On 18 July 1986, OSPV informed the Ministry of Labour in writing that it was the Corporation VIASA which had cancelled the flights programmed for the following days. The complainant accordingly considers that the members of its executive committee were wrongfully suspended. It points out that the suspension affected their contractual and their union rights: they could not perform their professional functions as pilots or their union functions as laid down in the Union's regulations and in the collective agreement; discussions on renewal of the agreement were held up; the individuals concerned were obliged to hand over their employment cards and badges; they lost professional and technical skill by being prevented from flying and also incurred loss of earnings, etc.

B. The Government's reply

1. 171. In its replies dated 24 April and 6 May 1986, the Government first stresses the importance attached in Venezuelan legislation to the protection of trade union rights. It adds that the question of the suspension of several union officers of the VIASA Corporation was before the courts at the time of writing and that VIASA had also appealed to a higher judicial instance.
2. 172. Going into greater detail, the Government explains that the procedure laid down in the Labour Code and regulations issued thereunder had been applied: VIASA had requested that the above-mentioned events be considered as constituting grounds for dismissal and the members of the Union's executive committee were therefore summoned in accordance with administrative procedure so as to be heard and to state their defence. They had been enabled to do this in the presence of the competent labour inspector, who had made the impugned decision. In accordance with law, the said decision put an end to the administrative procedure - in other words, the Ministry of Labour had nothing more to do with the matter, despite what the complainant might say on the point.
3. 173. The Government states that the persons concerned were, on the other hand, able to appeal for annulment of the administrative decision made by the labour inspectorate by applying to the first instance of the Administrative Disputes Authority; they had done this and in a first decision dated 29 January 1987, the said Authority ruled in favour of the Ministry of Labour.
4. 174. In a later communication dated 23 October 1987, the Government adds that the Administrative Disputes Authority subsequently took an interlocutory decision to terminate the dismissal proceedings and to order reinstatement of the persons affected thereby. It also states that, although the Disputes Authority had not given a final ruling on the matter, the VIASA Corporation decided to accept the interlocutory order and to reinstate the members of the OSPV executive committee; the committee members had accordingly been able to resume their work and exercise their trade union rights to the full. The Government points out that relations between the Corporation and the Union are now normal and that collective bargaining - particularly in respect of improvements in aircraft pilots' salaries and new clauses on protection of freedom of association - is currently under way. The Government hopes the negotiations will bear fruit in the near future. In its communication of 11 February 1988, the Government supplies the text of the ruling handed down by the Disputes Authority which orders the definitive reinstatement of the dismissed trade union leaders.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 175. This case relates to an alleged act of anti-union discrimination against the members of the executive committee of a pilots' union (OSVP) as part of a labour dispute within the Venezuelan International Aviation Corporation. In the view of the complainant, the suspension of the said committee members was unlawful because the cessation of activity by the aircraft pilots, which was at the root of the dispute, was due to technical reasons and had in fact, been ordered by the employer Corporation itself. In the Government's view, on the other hand, the action taken by the labour inspector was justified by an unlawful stoppage for which the aircraft pilots were to blame.
2. 176. The Committee recalls also that, as it has pointed out in previous cases, the dismissal or suspension of an employee, depriving him of his status as a trade union officer, is liable to affect the union's freedom of action and the worker's right to choose their representatives freely and may even encourage interference on the employer's part (See 147th Report, Case No. 677 (Sudan), para. 222.).
3. 177. In the present case, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the labour dispute at the root of the matter, which induced the VIASA Corporation to suspend the members of the OSPV's executive committee, is now in the course of being settled. It notes further that, as the result of a judicial decision, the trade union officers affected by anti-union discrimination have been reinstated in their jobs.
4. 178. Accordingly, given the information now at its disposal, the Committee considers that there is no point in continuing examination of this case.