Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 354, June 2009

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 188. At its March 2008 session, the Committee regretted that, despite the seriousness of the case, the Government had not sent information relating to the recommendations that it had made at its March 2007 session and which it therefore reiterated. Those recommendations are set out below [see 349th Report, para. 298]:
   • – bearing in mind the importance of due process of law being respected, the Committee trusts that the trade union leader, Carlos Ortega, will be released without delay and requests the Government to send it the decision handed down by the authority hearing the appeal. The Committee also requests the Government to send it a copy of the sentence handed down by the court of first instance (with all the reasons and conclusions therefor) in respect of the trade union leader Carlos Ortega (the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV) has only sent a copy of the record of the public hearing at which the decision of the court and the sentence were made public);
   • – the Committee requests the Government to recognize FEDEUNEP and to take steps to ensure that it is not the object of discrimination in social dialogue and in collective bargaining, particularly in the light of the fact that it is affiliated to the CTV – another organization that has encountered problems of recognition which the Committee has already examined in the context of this case. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any invitation it sends to FEDEUNEP in the context of social dialogue. The Committee recalls the principle that both the government authorities and employers should refrain from any discrimination between trade union organizations, especially as regards recognition of their leaders who seek to perform legitimate trade union activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fourth edition, 1996, para. 307];
   • – with regard to the dismissal of over 23,000 workers from the PDVSA and its subsidiaries in 2003 for having taken part in a strike during the national civic work stoppage, the Committee notes the Government’s statements, and specifically that only 10 per cent of the appeals lodged with the labour inspectorate and other judicial authority have not yet been ruled upon. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has disregarded its recommendation that it enter into negotiations with the most representative workers’ federations in order to find a solution to the dismissals at the PDVSA and its subsidiaries as a result of the organization of or participation in a strike during the national civic work stoppage. The Committee reiterates this recommendation;
   • – the Committee calls on the Government to take steps to vacate the detention orders against the officials and members of the National Union of Oil, Gas, Petrochemical and Refinery Workers (UNAPETROL), Horacio Medina, Edgar Quijano, Iván Fernández, Mireya Repanti, Gonzalo Feijoo, Juan Luis Santana and Lino Castillo, and to keep it informed in this respect;
   • – the Committee considers that the founders and members of UNAPETROL should be reinstated in their jobs since, in addition to the fact that they were participating in a civic work stoppage, they were dismissed while they were undergoing training;
   • – with regard to the alleged acts of violence, arrests and torture by the military on 17 January 2003 against a group of workers from the PDVSA enterprise – leaders of the Beverage Industry Union of the State of Carabobo – who were protesting against the raiding of the enterprise and the confiscation of its assets, which was a threat to their source of work, the Committee notes that the complaints submitted by José Gallardo, Jhonathan Rivas, Juan Carlos Zavala and Ramón Díaz are currently under investigation and stresses that the allegations refer to the detention and torture of these workers, as well as of Faustino Villamediana. While regretting that the proceedings currently pending at the Office of the Attorney-General with respect to four workers have not been concluded despite the fact that the events go back to December 2002 or January 2003, the Committee firmly hopes that the authorities will rapidly conclude the investigations and requests the Government to keep it informed of any decision that is taken;
   • – the Committee requests the Government to send it the decision adopted by the labour inspectorate regarding the reassessment of the dismissal of trade unionist Gustavo Silva and draws attention to the delays in the conduct of these proceedings;
   • – with regard to the dismissal of FEDEUNEP trade unionist Cecilia Palma, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether she has appealed against the ruling of 1 September 2003 and, if so, to keep it informed of the outcome of her appeal; and
   • – in general, the Committee deeply regrets the excessive delay in the administration of justice with regard to several aspects of this case and emphasizes that justice delayed is justice denied and that this situation prevents the trade unions and their members from exercising their rights effectively.
2. 189. Furthermore, at its March 2008 session, the Committee urged the Government to send the requested information urgently and without delay, and to give effect to those recommendations [see 349th Report, para. 299].
3. 190. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Government to respond specifically to the following allegations by UNAPETROL, which were submitted in its communications of 2 March and 27 September 2007. The complainant organization UNAPETROL indicated that the auditing body of the PDVSA summoned around 200 dismissed workers – including union officials – who participated in the 2002–03 work stoppage in the petroleum sector as part of investigations into the losses of millions of dollars incurred during the stoppage. According to UNAPETROL, these were undefined and vague accusations, which lacked proof, and were another example of anti-union persecution.
4. 191. UNAPETROL added that the public summons issued by the enterprise put forward conclusions relating to the national civic work stoppage which were not within its remit, when stating that “an analysis of the information contained in the written and audiovisual mass media showed that the prerequisites for workers to initiate strike procedures were not met …”.
5. 192. The complainant organization noted furthermore that there was a substantial amount of proof, which was duly presented to the Attorney-General’s Office – as well as records of public statements made by UNAPETROL spokespersons and public hearings in which they participated – relating to inappropriate operational procedures, acts of negligence, incompetence and the use of physical violence at various operational sites of the enterprise just after the dismissals had taken place and once members of the national armed forces had taken control of the facilities, and that this proof attests to the absolute innocence of all the dismissed workers. The evidence has been completely overlooked and ignored by the Tax Auditor’s Office, the PDVSA Operational Audit Unit and even the Attorney-General’s Office. In this connection, UNAPETROL enclosed the following:
   • – copies of the document presented by a group of lawyers and representatives of these workers to the Attorney-General’s Office in April 2003, containing certificates of safe transfer for installations that were later found to be damaged, once officials of the regime had taken control of operations; and
   • – documents presented to the Tax Auditor’s Office and the PDVSA Operational Audit Unit by Víctor Ramos and Horacio Medina, the internal control secretary and the president of UNAPETROL, who were summoned to meetings on 16 and 22 December 2006, respectively. According to UNAPETROL, the documents demonstrate how these workers were subjected to an act of persecution and retaliation while they were totally defenceless. Furthermore, union officials Edgar Quijano and Rodolfo Moreno, the labour assistance secretary and the vice-president of the disciplinary tribunal of UNAPETROL, were publicly summoned to meetings on 12 April and 28 June 2007; Horacio Medina, president of UNAPETROL, was also summoned.
6. 193. In its communication dated 7 October 2008, the Government reiterates the content of the communications that it has submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association on previous occasions – since 20 February 2003 – especially Communication No. 361/2007, dated 24 October 2007, in which it requested that the case be closed, as it considered that the statements and arguments it had provided in response to the Committee’s requests were not only sufficient, relevant and sound but also demonstrated that those of the complainants were groundless. Lastly, the Government reiterates its request with regard to the appraisal of the allegations put forward by the parties in this case and the consideration and fair assessment of the information provided by the Government.
7. 194. The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided the specific information that it requested in the recommendations that it made in March 2007 and March 2008, which it therefore reiterates. Furthermore, the Committee once again requests the Government to respond specifically to the allegations by UNAPETROL, which were submitted in its communications of 2 March and 27 September 2007, given that it has merely reiterated information that has already been examined. Given the seriousness of the pending issues, the Committee ultimately trusts that the Government will fully cooperate with the procedure and will respond in detail to the questions that have been asked.
8. 195. Lastly, given the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaints and the Government’s failure to communicate the requested information, the Committee invites the complainant organizations to communicate any relevant information on the matters that are pending.