Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 365, November 2012

1. 1025. The complaint is contained in two communications from the Trade Union, Indigenous and Peasant Movement of Guatemala (MSICG) dated 22 and 23 February 2011.
2. 1026. The Government sent partial observations in a communication dated 25 October 2011.
3. 1027. 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

Anti-union transfer of workers

1. 1028. In a communication dated 22 February 2011 the complainant alleges that, in 2007 the Union of Workers of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (SITRADICMP) was established but that the Public Prosecutor prevented the union from functioning by transferring the members of its provisional Executive Committee (Case No. 2580). Following legal action by members of the union, the Public Prosecutor issued agreement No. 0411-2007 revoking the transfers of the first three union officials concerned. Despite this agreement, however, the Public Prosecutor filed complaints against the three officials and requested authorization to dismiss them for non-compliance with the transfer order, thereby going against the ruling of the Constitutional Court of Legal Protection suspending the legal and material effects of the transfer ordered by the Public Prosecutor in an act of anti-union reprisal.
2. 1029. The complainant emphasizes that the situation has deteriorated since the appointment of the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who has engaged in a series of reprisals against members and officials of SITRADICMP and has warned the other workers that they too will face reprisals if they join the union. When the Public Prosecutor took up office, SITRADICMP presented a request on 16 December 2010 in an attempt to establish a dialogue with her to discuss employment conditions in the Department. On 6 January 2011 Javier Adolfo de León Salazar, a SITRADICMP official, was informed that the Public Prosecutor had unilaterally decided that he was to be transferred, in violation of article 22 of the collective agreement in force. His transfer was ordered by agreement No. 003-2011 of 3 January 2011.
3. 1030. The complainant adds that, as part of her reprisals against Mr Salazar, the Public Prosecutor failed to grant him annual leave for 2009 and 2010. This was confirmed by the General Labour Inspectorate in its records dated 11 January and 3 February 2011, which also noted the former’s refusal to grant him annual leave. A complaint against the anti-union transfer of SITRADICMP’s General Secretary was lodged with the Labour Inspectorate which, in its records dated 18 January and 3 February 2011, declared Mr Salazar’s transfer to be an anti-union measure that was against the law and instructed the Public Prosecutor to revoke the decision.
4. 1031. The complainant states that, as a reprisal against the Labour Inspectorate’s instruction, the Public Prosecutor challenged the authority of the inspector in charge of the case and requested that someone else be appointed in his stead. As a result, the General Labour Inspectorate has not yet been able to verify the Public Prosecutor’s compliance with its instruction. Mr Salazar also requested the General Labour Inspectorate to rule on whether article 22 of the collective agreement was applicable under the terms of ILO Convention No. 87. On 4 February 2011 the General Labour Inspectorate ruled that in the circumstances Mr Salazar’s transfer was an infringement of the said collective agreement.
5. 1032. According to the complainant, far from revoking the illegal transfer of SITRADICMP’s General Secretary, the Public Prosecutor had stepped up her anti-union activities by engaging in acts of interference. On 27 January 2011 she lodged a request with the General Labour Inspectorate calling on it to investigate Mr Salazar’s use of his trade union prerogatives and to report back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The General Labour Inspectorate rejected the Public Prosecutor’s request and reminded her of the provisions and scope of Convention No. 87. The complainant stresses its opinion that the increase in the Public Prosecutor’s anti-union pressure on SITRADICMP, and especially on its General Secretary who is a member of the MSICG’s Policy Board, is attributable to her desire to break up the union, which she sees as an obstacle to a proposal by certain circles that she frequents, notably the Guatemala Institute of Comparative Criminal Science, to do away with the Criminal Investigation Department.
6. 1033. The complainant states that, as part of this strategy, political allies of the Public Prosecutor challenged the constitutionality of a provision in the Organic Law Governing the Public Prosecutor’s Office that provides for the possibility of reviewing decisions taken by the Public Prosecutor that entail the dismissal or transfer of employees of the Office. The challenge, which the Constitutional Court examined under Case No. 2523-2010, resulted in its ruling on 1 February 2011 that the said provision was unconstitutional. Although the Court’s ruling affected the existing collective agreement and the workers’ right of defence against measures relating to labour rights, the Court failed to give a hearing to the trade unions operating in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In practice, the ruling has effectively eliminated any possibility of challenging transfer orders and dismissals. The complainant emphasizes that, in the first place, the General Labour Inspectorate has complied strictly with the principles embodied in Convention No. 87 and, secondly, that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not only failed to comply with the Committee on Freedom of Association’s request with regard to Case No. 2580 but has actually stepped up its anti union measures against SITRADICMP, and especially against its General Secretary, Javier Adolfo de León Salazar.
7. 1034. In its communication of 23 February 2011 the complainant cites the following incidents: obstructing the registration of trade unions by claiming that they do not meet legal requirements and giving employers a hearing to voice their opinion for or against the establishment of a trade union; subcontracting staff through satellite companies that are set up to prevent the establishment of trade unions, to help break them up or to make sure they have little social backing for their demands; contracting the services of companies that provide information on the background of jobseekers; refusing to recruit workers who have been employed in unionized workplaces or involved in establishing trade unions; illegal and repeated waiving by labour tribunals of the trade union immunity that prohibits employers from dismissing workers engaged in negotiating union demands; dismissing all workers who help to organize trade unions; co-opting leaders of the work centres movement or of the federations and confederations that support them; co-opting officials and employees of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare so as to prevent or delay the registration of trade unions; setting up “yellow” trade unions in work centres; establishing “Solidarista” associations that are controlled by the employers; recruiting workers illegally under civil or mercantile contracts that deny them their workers’ rights; using unions backed and controlled by the employer to take over established trade unions; closing down work centres simply by changing their name and location so as to disrupt the trade union; assassinating union leaders, kidnapping, sexually assaulting their family members, attempted assassination, threats, persecution, intimidation, harassment, defamation, calumny, insults and other forms of coercion of unionized workers or the members of their families, to prevent them from setting up unions or from engaging in union activities. All these incidents occur with total impunity because of the State’s refusal to investigate.

Obstruction and interference by the authorities in the registration of trade unions

1. 1035. The complainant cites 16 trade unions that have requested registration since 2009, none of which have so far been recognized:
   • (1) Sindicato de Trabajadores de Inversiones y Servicios Imperia SA;
   • (2) Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Fray Bartolomé de las Casas;
   • (3) Sindicato de Servidores Municipales de San Lorenzo de Suchitepequez;
   • (4) Sindicato de Empleados Municipales del Municipio de Ixchiguan del Departamento de San Marcos;
   • (5) Sindicato del Ministerio de Educación del Departamento de Alta Verapaz;
   • (6) Sindicato de Trabajadores Ramón Adán Sturtze;
   • (7) Sindicato de Gerentes Financieros del Ministerio de Salud Pública y Asistencia Social;
   • (8) Sindicato de Trabajadores Técnicos y Administrativos del Ministerio de Educación de Occidente;
   • (9) Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Superintendencia de Administración Tributaria;
   • (10) Sindicato de Trabajadores del Hospital de San Marcos del Departamento de San Marcos;
   • (11) Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Secretaría Ejecutiva de la Coordinadora Nacional para la Reducción de Desastres;
   • (12) Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Dirección Departamental de Educación de Quetzaltenango;
   • (13) Sindicato de Trabajadores Administrativos del Segundo Registro de la Propiedad de Quetzaltenango;
   • (14) Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Municipalidad de Chiquimula;
   • (15) Sindicato de Trabajadores Unidos de la Municipalidad de San Pedro Sacatepequez del Departamento de San Marcos;
   • (16) Sindicato de Trabajadores del Plan de Empleo Municipal.
2. 1036. The complainant states that the labour authorities interfere by imposing requirements for trade union registration that are not based on the law, as well as the payment of taxes before unions can be registered. The unions cannot then be registered until they have complied with the requirements of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. The demands that the authorities make for registering trade unions include: amending or correcting various provisions in the union’s rules; changing the union’s juridical status; correcting the union’s constitutive act; signing every page of the draft rules; entering the data on each member in the order the authorities require.

Interference by employers in the establishment of trade unions

1. 1037. The complainant refers to two cases: (1) the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates; and (2) the Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam of the Department of San Marcos.

Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates

1. 1038. Regarding the first of these two cases, the complainant states that in 2009, the Union of Employees of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estates and the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the El Arco Estate applied to the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare for the merger of their organizations, which had agreed to merge, inter alia, to strengthen the trade union movement in the estates concerned. Shortly after the merger was requested, the Ministry agreed to hear the employer, represented by the general manager and legal representative of Agropecuaria Los Ángeles SA. At the hearing, according to the complainant, the employer objected to the merger for a number of reasons, among other things, because many of the union members requesting the merger (identified by name) had already been dismissed and because the monies due to them had been paid deposited with the relevant tribunal. Given the employer’s objections, the Ministry invited the two trade unions to express their views on the matter. So far the merger has not been made official.

Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam

1. 1039. As to the second case, concerning the request for registration presented by the Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam, the complainant states that the union was initially set up in January 2008 with 22 workers and that it submitted its request for registration and for the approval of its rules on 30 January. On 12 February 2008 the Ministry objected to the union’s registration on the grounds that the personal details of one of the founder members did not match the data on his residence card. According to the complainant, the problem was resolved when the trade union confirmed in writing that there was in fact no such inconsistency and that the member’s name was correctly written as it appeared on his residence card.
2. 1040. The complainant adds that on 7 March 2008 the General Labour Directorate brought the matter before the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, as the hierarchically superior body. On 8 March the Ministry agreed to recognize the union and approved its rules. On 11 March the General Labour Directorate issued a ruling requesting the corresponding entry to be made in the Official Gazette of Central America. However, the Directorate cancelled the said ruling by decision No. 186-2008 dated 10 March 2008 and sent the Ministry a ruling explaining that the union’s registration was inadmissible on the grounds that it did not meet legal requirements.
3. 1041. The complainant goes on to state that, in its ruling No. 91-2008, the General Labour Directorate raised further objections to the registration of the union, to which the latter responded in order to speed up the process. According to the complainant, on 11 March a lawyer allegedly representing the employer requested the General Labour Inspectorate to provide him with the list of the union’s founder members along with their personal details. The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare wrote to the trade union requesting authorization to provide the employer’s lawyer with the requested information, which the union refused. On 8 April 2008 the Labour Directorate received the resignation of 12 supposed founder members of the trade union. The following day the Directorate declared that only three of the resignations were admissible as only three were from founder members. On 24 April the very same Directorate issued a ruling declaring that the trade union’s request for registration was inadmissible as it was not signed by the number of members required by law.

B. The Government’s reply

Obstruction and interference by the authorities in the registration of trade unions

1. 1042. In a communication dated 25 October 2011 the Government states that it requested the General Labour Directorate to submit its observations. Regarding the registration of trade unions, the Directorate states that the Labour Code lays down requirements for recognizing the juridical personality of trade unions; these do not entail a strict review but simply observations and procedures that have to be complied with before a union’s juridical personality and registration can be recognized. It is quite normal for minor errors to come to light and in such cases the preliminary review is suspended while the union is informed and makes the appropriate amendments, corrections or substitutions. Once these preliminaries have been dealt with and the errors corrected, an opinion is immediately issued in favour of the union’s recognition and registration.
2. 1043. With regard to the requirements which the complainant claims are illegal, the General Labour Directorate offers the following clarification:
   • – the presentation of photocopies of identity cards was jointly accepted by the General Labour Inspectorate and members of the worker’s sector, so that there are no mistakes in the members’ names on the credentials for a union’s executive committee and advisory board;
   • – the National Workers’ Protection Department states that, under article 221(i) of the Labour Code, provision must be made for holding general assemblies;
   • – the requirement that all proceedings be certified by a plenary meeting of the executive committee is based on article 223(a) of the Labour Code;
   • – the requirement that the documents presented bear the trade union’s official seal is based on article 225(a) and (d) of the Labour Code;
   • – the requirement that the place of residence be indicated is based on article 221(c) of the Labour Code.

Interference by employers in the establishment of trade unions

Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates

1. 1044. Regarding the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates, the General Labour Directorate states that on 2 November 2009 the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estates and the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the El Arco Estate applied for a merger of their two organizations, under the new name of Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates, and submitted the unions’ respective rules. On 13 November 2009 the Guatemala Workers’ Protection Department issued a preliminary opinion, to which the nascent trade union replied on 1 December.
2. 1045. The General Labour Directorate recalls that on 22 April 2009 the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare requested the dissolution of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estate. On 9 October the Seventh Labour and Social Welfare Court acted on the request and set a hearing for 9 a.m. on 10 February 2010. The members of the union opposed the request, arguing that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 May 2009 had granted definitive immunity to the ten workers involved and had ordered their reinstatement.
3. 1046. The General Labour Inspectorate states that on 25 February 2010 the National Workers’ Protection Department issued another preliminary opinion to which the union members responded on 29 May 2010. On 6 May 2010 the general manager and legal representative of the employer presented a memorandum arguing against the establishment of the trade union and opposing the union’s rules; he requested, first, that his opposition be duly recognized and, second, that the General Labour Directorate rule against the union’s establishment. The Guatemala Labour Protection Department arranged a hearing for the trade unions concerned.
4. 1047. The General Labour Directorate states that on 20 May 2012 the National Workers’ Protection Department issued a statement referring to the general manager and legal adviser’s objections and summoned the members of the Executive Committee of the Union of Workers of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estates and of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the El Arco Estate to a hearing. The National Workers’ Protection Department issued a further statement on 8 June 2010 summoning the members of the provisional Executive Committee of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates “STAA” (merged). On 5 July 2010 the National Workers’ Protection Department issued a statement once again summoning the members of the provisional Executive Committee of the STAA. The series of statements was duly recorded. The General Labour Directorate states that the National Workers’ Protection Department subsequently issued statements again inviting the union members to a hearing to discuss the general manager’s objections.
5. 1048. On 13 July 2010 the members of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estates and of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the El Arco Estate submitted a memorandum arguing that the managing director’s objections were not a legally recognized form of challenge and that they should be rejected out of hand. On 28 July the National Workers’ Protection Department so informed the manager of Agropecuaria Los Ángeles, SA. On 10 August the general manager again presented a memorandum calling for the rejection of the merger, to which he attached photocopies of several previous rulings. On 12 August 2010 a new statement was issued informing the union members of the general manager’s memorandum.
6. 1049. On 25 August 2010 the National Workers’ Protection Department issued a statement recalling the successive stages in the matter of the request presented by the STAA; the interested parties were notified on 26 August. On 19 November 2010 the General Labour Directorate sent the union a telegram to the effect that, according to its files, the STAA had not responded to the summonses sent to them on 25 August 2010.

Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam

1. 1050. Regarding the Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam, the General Labour Directorate again explains the procedure, stating that on 31 January 2008 it received an official document concerning the union’s establishment together along with the constitutive act dated 10 January 2008, showing a membership of 22, and the union’s rules. On 11 February 2008 the Director of the General Labour Inspectorate stated that recognition of the union’s juridical personality was conditional on its indicating where the members’ residence cards had been issued, since the information did not appear in the constitutive act. On 7 March 2008 the General Labour Directorate stated that the requirement had now been met, issued a ruling recognizing the juridical personality of the Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam of the Department of San Marcos and ordered the union’s inclusion in the public register of trade unions and publication of the Inspectorate’s ruling free of charge.
2. 1051. The General Labour Directorate adds that on 11 March the Vice-Minister of Labour and Social Welfare requested the union to indicate where the residence card of founder member Juan Bautista Cifuentes Martínez had been issued, on the grounds that the 7 March ruling had cancelled it in response to the Vice-Minister’s request of 10 March 2008. On the same day a lawyer requested the list of names of the union’s founder members. Following the union’s refusal, the General Labour Directorate declared the lawyer’s request to be inadmissible on 4 April.
3. 1052. The General Labour Directorate states also that on 8 March 2008 the following workers presented duly authenticated memorandums requesting that their names be struck from the list of members of the union as they had resigned: Claudio Paulino Borrayes Roblero, Rosario Ireneo González Roblero, Daniel Elías López Roblero, Bekely Wilcox Cifuentes Barrios, Filadelfo Pedro Roblero Roblero, Eleazar Áureo Velásquez Roblero, Dulce Flor Cifuentes Barrios, Valeriano Juan Hernández Cifuentes, Heller Trinidad de León Sánchez and Andrés Roblero Bravo. On 9 April 2008 the General Labour Directorate rejected their request on the grounds that they were not members of the union. The Labour Inspectorate did, however, approve the resignation of three other workers: Benito Roblero Velásquez, Iven Godofredo Barrios Marroquín and Enedina Eladia Morales Santizo.
4. 1053. On 24 April 2008 the General Labour Directorate issued a ruling refusing to recognize the union’s juridical personality, approve its rules or order its registration. On 2 May Ludwin Oliverio Monzón Sánchez appealed against the Directorate’s ruling. After examining the appeal, the Technical and Legal Advisory Board of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare stated that, by virtue of the second paragraph of article 275 of the Labour Code, the appeal was rejected because the deadline had expired.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1054. The Committee takes note that in the case under examination the complainant alleges anti union transfers, obstruction and interference by the authorities in the registration of trade unions and interference by the employer in the establishment of trade unions.

Anti-union transfer of a trade union leader

1. 1055. Regarding the alleged anti-union transfer of the trade union leader, Javier Adolfo de León Salazar, the Committee recalls, as does the complainant, that the same issue was examined under Case No. 2580. The Committee takes note specifically that: (1) the complainant states that not only has the Committee on Freedom of Association’s request with regard to Case No. 2580 not been complied with but the anti-union measures against SITRADICMP have actually been stepped up, especially against its General Secretary, Javier Adolfo de León Salazar; (2) the General Labour Inspectorate declared Mr Salazar’s transfer to be an anti-union measure that was against the law and instructed the Public Prosecutor to revoke the decision; (3) the complainant states that, as a reprisal against the Labour Inspectorate’s instructions, the Public Prosecutor challenged the authority of the inspector in charge of the case and requested that someone else be appointed in his stead; (4) as a result, the General Labour Inspectorate has not yet been able to verify compliance with its instructions; and (5) the Committee notes that the Government has not sent its observations on the matter. The Committee recalls that, in its examination of Case No. 2580, it had requested the Government, in the absence of any information to the contrary, to adopt the necessary measures to cancel the transfer of the Executive Committee members of SITRADICMP and to ensure that the union and its members can exercise their legitimate activities without being subjected to intimidation and persecution. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this regard without delay and proposes to examine the complainant’s allegations concerning SITRADICMP together with the observations that it is awaiting from the Government in connection with its follow-up of Case No. 2580.

Obstruction and interference by the authorities in the registration of trade unions

1. 1056. The Committee takes note that the complainant alleges the authorities’ obstruction and interference in the registration of 16 trade unions that have not been registered since they presented their request in 2009. The Committee observes that, according to the complainant, the labour authorities interfere by imposing requirements for trade union registration that have no legal basis, for example: amending or correcting various provisions in the union’s rules; changing the union’s juridical status; correcting the union’s constitutive act; signing every page of the draft rules; entering each member’s personal details in the order required by the authorities. The Committee takes note that, for its part, the General Labour Directorate states that the requirements called for by the authorities to register trade unions are based on agreements between the parties and on the provisions of the Labour Code.
2. 1057. While taking note of this information, the Committee wishes to recall that, although the founders of a trade union should comply with the formalities prescribed by legislation, these formalities should not be of such a nature as to impair the free establishment of organizations. Moreover, the formalities prescribed by law for the establishment of a trade union should not be applied in such a manner as to delay or prevent the establishment of trade union organizations, and any delay caused by authorities in registering a trade union constitutes an infringement of Article 2 of Convention No. 87 [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 276 and 279]. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the swift registration of the 16 trade unions that have applied since 2009 and to keep it informed of developments.

Interference by employers in the establishment of trade unions

Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates

1. 1058. Regarding the establishment of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates (STAA), the Committee takes note that, according to the complainant and in the context of the merger of the Union of Workers of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estates with the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the El Arco Estate, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare agreed to hear the employer’s side, represented by the company’s managing director, and that this has so far prevented the merger from taking place. The Committee notes that, for its part, the General Labour Directorate confirms the managing director’s objections to the merger and adds that: (1) a hearing was granted to the members of the Executive Committee of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and La Argentina Estates and of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the El Arco Estate; (2) a hearing was granted to the members of the provisional Executive Committee of the Union of Employees and Allied Workers of the Los Ángeles and El Arco Estates (STAA); (3) the National Workers’ Protection Department issued a statement recalling the successive stages in the matter of the request presented by the STAA; and (4) the trade union has not yet responded to earlier summonses that are mentioned in the relevant file.
2. 1059. In the light of this information, the Committee requests the complainant to respond to the National Workers’ Protection Department’s 25 August 2010 statement referring to errors in the STAA’s Constitutive Act that have to be corrected for the STAA to be recognized. The Committee also wishes to recall that, under Article 2 of Convention No. 87, workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Committee considers that, if a trade union complies with legal requirements and if the union’s rules are respected, it should be recognized. In this regard, the Committee recalls as well that, although the founders of a trade union should comply with the formalities prescribed by legislation, these formalities should not be of such a nature as to impair the free establishment of organizations [see Digest, op. cit., para. 276]. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government, once the errors in the STAA’s constitutive act have been corrected, to take the necessary measures for the said trade union to be recognized and immediately registered.

Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam

1. 1060. Regarding the establishment of the Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam, the Committee takes note that the complainant states that: (1) following the General Labour Directorate’s request that the union’s rules be published and its juridical personality recognized, the Directorate revoked its ruling and declared that the union’s request for registration was inadmissible as it did not comply with the legal requirements (20 members); (2) the General Labour Directorate declared that three resignations from the union were admissible because only three of the 13 workers who resigned were founder members; and (3) the very same Directorate issued a ruling declaring that the trade union’s request for registration was inadmissible as it was not signed by the number of members required by law. Regarding the alleged interference of the employer in the establishment of the union, the Committee takes notes that the complainant states that on 11 March 2011 a lawyer allegedly representing the employer requested the General Labour Directorate to provide him with the list of names of the union’s founder members, along with their personal details, and that the union refused.
2. 1061. The Committee takes note that the General Labour Directorate states that: (1) the legal requirements had been met and the Directorate issued a ruling recognizing the union’s juridical personality and ordering its inclusion in the public register and the publication of the Directorate’s ruling; (2) subsequently, the Vice-Minister of Labour and Social Welfare requested the union to indicate where the residence card of founder member Juan Bautista Cifuentes Martínez had been issued and the aforementioned ruling was revoked; (3) in April 2008 the General Labour Directorate approved the resignation of three workers from the union (out of the 13 who had presented their resignation) and issued a ruling refusing to recognize the union’s juridical personality, approve its rules or order its registration; (4) an appeal against the ruling was rejected because the deadline had expired. Regarding the employer’s alleged interference, the Committee takes note that the General Labour Directorate confirms that a lawyer requested the list of the said union’s founder members, that the union members refused and that on 4 April 2008 the Directorate declared the lawyer’s request inadmissible.
3. 1062. Taking note of the information at its disposal, the Committee understands that the Workers’ Trade Union of the Municipality of San José Ojotenam complied fully with the requirements for its registration until the resignation of three workers was approved by the General Labour Directorate, as a result of which there was no longer the legal minimum number of workers (20) required for establishing a trade union. It would therefore appear that the reason for refusing to register the union is the insufficient number of founder members and not the interference of the lawyer for the employer’s side in the process. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation any further.