Interim Report - Report No 319, November 1999

1. 170. The Committee last examined this case at its March 1999 meeting (see 314th Report, paras. 114-127). The Government sent its observations in communications dated 12 August and 3 September 1999.
2. 171. Colombia 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 172. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant had alleged that in the process of collective bargaining, the trade union USO and the enterprise ECOPETROL had excluded ADECO and entered into a collective agreement (the legality of which was questioned by the complainant) which was also being applied to members of ADECO, despite the fact that the other union (USO) did not represent more than 50 per cent of the workforce at the enterprise (a legal prerequisite for negotiating on behalf of all the workers). According to the complainant, this situation had: (1) caused ADECO members to lose the acquired rights which they had enjoyed under the terms of an agreement concluded in 1997 with the management of ECOPETROL (which ADECO claims to be valid); (2) resulted in discrimination against them in terms of the entitlements and benefits enjoyed by the other workers; (3) led to the loss by ADECO of trade union safeguards such as trade union immunity, union leave, etc.; and (4) forced members of ADECO to pay dues to USO. At the same time, the complainant had stressed that the Ministry of Labour had not conducted the trade union census which it had requested to determine the representativeness of the two unions operating at the enterprise, and emphasized that USO had not complied with an accord with ADECO which guaranteed not only that a joint list of demands for negotiation would be put forward but also that an ADECO negotiator would be allowed to participate in the talks. Lastly, ADECO alleged that when the collective agreement had been signed, representatives of the company had put pressure on workers to leave the union, which had resulted in a large number of resignations by members. In this context, the Committee had noted: (1) the Government's statement that instructions had been given to start an inquiry immediately into the allegations in question, given that ADECO had not made any complaints to the Ministry of Labour concerning many of the issues raised; and (2) that ADECO on 8 October 1998 had withdrawn its request to the competent authority for a trade union census at ECOPETROL.
2. 173. In this respect, at its March 1999 meeting, the Committee had formulated the following recommendations (see 314th Report, para. 128):
3. The Committee requests the Government to communicate without delay the outcome of the inquiry conducted into the different aspects of this case which should cover all of the allegations made by the complainant;
4. The Committee requests the complainant to provide additional information concerning the withdrawal of the request for a trade union census at ECOPETROL.
5. B. The Government's reply
6. 174. In its communications dated 12 August and 3 September 1999, the Government states that the vast majority of the points at issue in the allegations before the Committee were examined and resolved through Decision No. 002967 of 9 December 1997 issued by the head of the Inspection Division of the Regional Directorate of Labour and Social Security of Bogotá and Cundinamarca, from which it is clear that the Government has made considerable administrative efforts and hence given due attention to this case. Lastly, the Government points out that it is clear from the abovementioned decision that the trade union organization ADECO has not lodged any complaint against ECOPETROL or the trade union organization USO with the Inspection Division of the Regional Labour Directorate which could have led to an administrative inquiry by the labour authorities, since, as has already been pointed out, the infringements reported to this department by the abovementioned trade union have been duly examined and a decision taken in conformity with the law and pursuant to the competence prescribed by law.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 175. The Committee observes that in its previous examination of the case it had requested the Government to communicate without delay the outcome of the inquiry that had been conducted into the different aspects of this case according to the Government, which should cover all of the allegations made by the complainant (specifically, the complainant had alleged that in the process of collective bargaining, the trade union USO and the enterprise ECOPETROL had excluded ADECO and entered into a collective agreement which had: (1) caused ADECO members to lose the acquired rights which they had enjoyed under the terms of an agreement concluded in 1997 with the management of ECOPETROL (which ADECO claims to be valid); (2) resulted in discrimination against ADECO members in terms of the entitlements and benefits enjoyed by the other workers; (3) led to the loss by ADECO of trade union safeguards such as trade union immunity, union leave, etc.; (4) forced members of ADECO to pay dues to USO; and (5) when the collective agreement had been signed, representatives of the company put pressure on workers to leave the union, which had resulted in a large number of resignations by members.
2. 176. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) the vast majority of the allegations had been examined and resolved through Decision No. 002967 of 9 December 1997 issued by the head of the Inspection Division of the Regional Directorate of Labour and Social Security of Bogotá and Cundinamarca; and (2) it is clear from this decision that the trade union organization ADECO has not lodged any complaint against ECOPETROL or the trade union organization USO that could have led to an administrative inquiry, since the infringements reported by ADECO had been duly examined and a decision taken in conformity with the law.
3. 177. The Committee deeply deplores the fact that the information communicated by the Government does not include the text of the administrative decisions that have been handed down and that it cannot be deduced from the information provided that the inquiry initiated by the administrative authorities covered all of the allegations made by the complainant. In any case, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide any information on the outcome of the inquiry into the alleged acts of discrimination against the trade union organization ADECO and its members. In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to take immediate steps to initiate an inquiry into all of the allegations and, on the basis of the information obtained, to communicate detailed observations in this respect, and to send the text of all the administrative decisions handed down to date.
4. 178. Lastly, as regards the allegation that the Ministry of Labour did not carry out the trade union census requested by ADECO to determine the representativeness of the two trade unions operating in the enterprise, the Committee recalls that at its March 1999 meeting it had requested the complainant to provide additional information concerning the withdrawal of the request for a trade union census. In this respect, noting that the complainant has not communicated the information requested, the Committee will not continue its examination of this allegation.