Interim Report - Report No 214, March 1982

1. 400. The Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry (WFTU) presented a complaint of infringement of trade union rights in Colombia in a communication dated 30 June 1981. Additional information was supplied by the complainant organisation in a communication dated 23 July 1981. The Permanent Congress of Trade Union Unity of Latin American Workers (CPUSTAL) joined in the complaint regarding one aspect of the case. The contents of these communications were transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations on 16 December 1981.
2. 401. 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. Allegations of the complainant organisation

1. 402. In its communication of 30 June 1981, the Trade Unions International of Workers in the Metal Industry (TUI-Metal) recalls that Colombia has been living in a state of emergency for more than 30 years. The Decree establishing security regulations has been in force since 1978 and, according to the complainant organisation, a number of other decrees have been issued to restrict trade union activities. In particular, some of these require the workers to obtain prior authorisation from the government authorities in order to hold a general meeting, call a strike or approve their union's budget; if they fail to do so, these trade union activities are deemed to be illegal. Under another decree, the exercise of the right to strike has been limited to 40 days in undertakings other than public undertakings, strikes must be settled by compulsory arbitration and the workers are obliged to return to their jobs within three days. The tripartite composition of arbitration boards, according to the complainant organisation, allows the Government and employers' representatives in most cases to reach an agreement and impose awards contrary to the workers' interests.
2. 403. More specifically, the complainant organisation explains that Colombian workers have in recent months included in their platform of demands efforts to combat the compulsory arbitration awards, the cost-of-living increases, the state of emergency, the security regulations and the closing down of certain undertakings. On 13 May 1981, as a result, they called a general two-hour strike at the request of one of the Colombian central trade union organisations: 11 workers, including 7 trade union leaders, had been dismissed in the FACOMEC company in Cali and the management of the INDURRAJES company in Medellin had requested government authorisation to dismiss the trade union leaders. In both cases, the trade unionists belonged to the National Federation of Metal Workers (FENATRAMETAL), a federation which is affiliated to the TUI-Metal.
3. 404. Moreover, the complainant organisation goes on to state in its first communication, the Van deer Envases company of Colombia has dismissed five trade union leaders.
4. 405. In its subsequent communication of 23 July 1981, the TUI-Metal also denounced the arrest, following the strike on 13 May 1981, of the FENATRAMETAL treasurer, José Joaquim Romero, who was handed over to the military tribunal. According to the complainant organisation, he is being held in the Bogotá "national model prison„ without having been either charged or sentenced. This information is confirmed in a communication of 3 August 1981 by the Permanent Congress of Trade Union Unity of Latin American Workers (CPUSTAL).
5. 406. The complainant organisation also alleges that several labour disputes resulted in the dismissal of trade unionists in the metal sector. In the COLPRA company of Barranquilla, for example, the workers, after submitting a list of demands for the conclusion of a collective agreement, had had to go on strike because of the management's refusal to negotiate. A compulsory arbitration board had been convened but, according to the complainant organisation, had not yet met at the time of its communication. As a result, even if the workers were to be awarded a wage increase by the arbitration board, the increase would not be retroactive and the workers would have lost one year's rise. The Government is also said to have convened an arbitration board in the Faba y Coservicios company of Medellin, which met only one year later, thus freezing the workers' wages. The complainant organisation states that 180 workers were dismissed in the Colombian Automotive Company with the authorisation of the Ministry of Labour and, in the enterprise Ascensores Atlas; members of the union's executive Committee were dismissed with the Government's endorsement. In the Inca bodywork plant, 150 workers were dismissed after the management had refused to negotiate a list of demands with the union for the conclusion of a new collective agreement. Lastly, in the enterprise Eternit, a strike had been declared illegal and the workers were forced by the police to leave the premises, arrested and dismissed.

B. The Government's reply

1. 407. In its reply of 16 December 1981, the Government states, regarding the alleged arrest of José Joaquim Romero, that it has requested the military institutions brigade to carry out an inquiry into the legal position of that person.
2. 408. Regarding the alleged dismissals of trade unionists in the various enterprises, the following information is supplied by the Government.
3. 409. In the COLPRA company of Barranquilla, a strike was called after collective bargaining had broken down, and carried out normally. However, pursuant to the discretionary powers granted to him under Decree No. 939 of 1966, the minister of Labour convened an arbitration board, which has not yet handed down an award.
4. 410. In the Faba y Coservicios company of Medellin, an arbitration board was convened following the submission of workers' claims and the parties reached an agreement.
5. 411. In the Colombian Automotive Company, the management had requested an authorisation from the Cundinamarca Labour and Social Security Division: to make dismissals, which was granted by administrative memorandum No. 0030 of 30 January 1981 following an appeal lodged by the dismissed workers. The enterprise was freed of any liability since the dismissals had been made for economic reasons, but it had to pay the legal and extralegal social benefits to the workers concerned. Furthermore, the administrative memorandum provides that the dismissals of any trade unionists must be made in accordance with the Act on trade union immunity. The memorandum states that the workers affected may appeal to the competent administrative tribunal.
6. 412. In the Ascensores Atlas company, according to inquiries made by the ministry of Labour, no labour dispute occurred between the management and the trade union.
7. 413. Regarding the Inca bodywork plant, the information supplied by the Government and the documentation attached to its reply indicate that, as a result of the management's refusal to discuss a list of demands submitted by the National Trade Union of Workers in the Mechanical Engineering, Metalworking, Metallurgy and Iron and Steel Industries (SINTRAIME), this union filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour on 12 August 1980. The reason given by the management for refusing to negotiate was that it had not been formally notified of the existence of that union or its list of demands, and had, besides, concluded a collective agreement with the workers of the enterprise. On 12 September 1980, the competent department of the Ministry of Labour ordered the management, by Decision No. 15596, to negotiate with the union. That decision was confirmed on 21 October and 1 December 1980 and again on 8 February 1981. Other appeals were filed subsequently by the enterprise's legal counsel, and an award handed down on one of them on 8 July 1981 by the Cundinamarca Labour and Social Security Division (Decision No. 05965) authorised the dismissal of 18 workers. Those dismissals were made by the Inca plant between 1 July and 15 August 1980. However, following an appeal filed by the SINTRAIME trade union, the competent authority ruled, by Decision No. 04910 of 4 November 1981, that those dismissals were collective dismissals without due ground. It sentenced the management of the enterprise to a fine and ordered an inquiry into anti-union harassment.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 414. The Committee notes that this case relates generally to trade union tension in the country and concerns, in particular, several enterprises in the metalworking sector where it is alleged that anti-union dismissals took place and a trade union leader was arrested following labour disputes.
2. 415. The picture drawn by the complainant organisation of the trade union situation shows that the workers are combating the state of emergency, the security regulations and the decrees imposing restrictions on trade union activities, especially as regards the administrative supervision of their activities and restrictions on the right to strike. The Government does not comment on these points.
3. 416. The Committee, for its part, has examined the legislative provisions governing the supervisory powers which the administrative authorities may exercise over trade union activities (sections 444 (2) and 486 of the Labour Code, Decree No. 2655 of 1954 and Decree No. 672 of 1956, in particular) and the various provisions relating to compulsory arbitration. It notes that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, in the comments it made in. March 1981 on the application of Convention No. 87, ratified by Colombia, requested the Government to bring its legislation into line with the Convention's provisions. In particular, the Committee of Experts stressed the need to reduce the supervisory powers which the administrative authorities may exercise in these fields and to "ensure that recourse to compulsory arbitration is limited to strikes in the essential services in the strict sense", i.e. those whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The Committee trusts that the Government will amend the relevant legislation to that end.
4. 417. As regards the allegation that, following a general two-hour strike on 13 May 1981 called by the workers at the request of one of the central trade union organisations, the treasurer of FENATRAMETAL, José Joaquim Romero, was imprisoned in the Bogotá national model prison, the Committee notes with regret that despite the time which has elapsed the Government, without denying the facts, simply states that it is carrying out an inquiry to determine the legal position of Mr. Romero. The Committee, while requesting the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of its inquiry, wishes to draw its attention to the fact that the detention of persons without trial may constitute a serious interference in trade union activities. In this respect, the Committee recalls that anyone who is detained has the right to a fair and prompt trial.
5. 418. As regards the alleged dismissals of trade unionists, the Committee notes with some concern that complaints concerning the dismissal of trade unionists for putting forward trade union demands in various sectors of the economy have been referred to it on several occasions already, and again in this report. 2
6. 419. In this case, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, 350 trade union militants and leaders in all were dismissed in various sectors of the metalworking industry, and that some of the dismissals were made following a general two-hour strike on 13 May 1981. The Government has not supplied information on the alleged dismissals in certain enterprises, although it has transmitted its observations on those in other enterprises. In some cases, the Government states that it was not aware of a labour dispute (Ascensores Atlas) or that it found that the dispute had been settled by an agreement (Faba y Coservicios) or that the dismissals were warranted by economic reasons (Colombian Automotive Company).
7. 420. However, the Committee observes that the Government acknowledges that, in the case of the COLPRA company, the Minister of Labour, exercising the discretionary powers granted to him by law, convened a compulsory arbitration board, which has not yet handed down an award. It also observes that, in the case of the Inca bodywork plant, the competent authority ruled that dismissals were made without due ground and has ordered an inquiry into antiunion harassment.
8. 421. Generally speaking, when it has to consider allegations of this nature, the Committee feels bound to recall, in the first place, that workers should enjoy adequate protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination and that such protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to carry out their trade union functions, they must have the assurance that they will not be victimised on account of their trade union offices Such protection should not only be provided for in the legislation but should also be effectively applied in practice.
9. 422. The Committee also notes that Colombian labour legislation expressly provides that the dismissal of a worker protected by trade union immunity can only be authorised by the competent judge if due grounds exist, Especially economic reasons (sections 408 and 410 of the Labour Code, as amended). According to the information in the Committees possession, it does not seem that the dismissals of workers protected by trade union immunity were made by the employers after obtaining the prior authorisation of the judge in accordance with law.
10. 423. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that employers strictly observe the law. As regards the grievances referred to in this case, it also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the dispute in the COLPRA company and the outcome of the inquiry into anti-union harassment in the Inca bodywork plant.