Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 356, March 2010

1. 794. This complaint is contained in a communication dated 16 February 2009 from the Union of Statistics Workers of the National Institute of Statistics (STINE).
2. 795. In its meeting in November 2009, the Committee observed that despite the time that had passed since the presentation of the complaint, it had not received the observations requested from the Government. The Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government and indicated that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraphs of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case even if the observations requested had not been received in due time. The Committee accordingly requested the Government to transmit its observations as a matter of urgency [see 354th Report, para. 9]. Since then the Government’s complete observations have still not been received.
3. 796. Guatemala 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. 797. In its communication of 16 February 2007, the STINE alleges that the National Institute of Statistics (INE) refuses to apply and adhere to the terms of the collective agreement concluded on 9 August 2007, formally endorsed by the Ministry of Labour on 30 October 2007 and approved by the Ministry on 14 December 2007 upon rejecting an administrative appeal lodged by the Executive Board of the INE. The complainant indicates that the various proceedings engaged to get the INE to comply with the agreement were unsuccessful, and the Executive Board initiated judicial proceedings to annul the formal endorsement of the collective agreement. The union explains that after a number of hearings and appeals, the First Chamber of Labour and Social Security on 11 November 2008, during the annulment proceedings brought by the INE, upheld the motion by the STINE to dismiss the application by the INE on grounds of insufficiency. The union adds that the INE then lodged an appeal for constitutional protection (amparo) with the Supreme Court, and provides a copy of the court decision of 5 November 2009 rejecting that request for amparo.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 798. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has passed, the Government has not sent the observations requested, although it has been invited on a number of occasions, including through an urgent appeal, to present its observations on the case.
2. 799. Under these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see the 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body in its 184th Session], the Government is bound to present a report on the substance of the case without the information it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 800. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the ILO for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for trade union rights, in law and in fact. The Committee remains convinced that if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognize the importance of formulating, so as to allow objective examination, detailed replies to the allegations brought against them.
4. 801. The Committee observes that in the present case, the complainant alleges the refusal by the INE to comply with the collective agreement concluded on 9 August 2007 and formally endorsed by the Ministry of Labour on 30 October 2007. The Committee notes that the INE appealed against the Ministry’s decision to endorse the agreement and the appeal was rejected on 14 December 2007. The Committee notes that the Institute then sought the judicial annulment of the collective agreement, and the STINE appealed against that application on grounds of insufficiency; the latter appeal was upheld by the First Chamber of Labour and Social Security on 11 November 2008. The Committee notes that according to the documents supplied by the union, the INE lodged an appeal for constitutional protection (amparo) against the Supreme Court decision, and the appeal was rejected on 5 November 2009. Under these circumstances, while regretting the time that has passed since the collective agreement was concluded without it being applied, and recalling that agreements must be binding for both parties, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that the INE applies in full the collective agreement concluded with the STINE on 9 August 2007. The Committee expects the Government to keep it informed in this regard.