Interim Report - Report No 236, November 1984

1. 444. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions dated 17 April 1984. The Government replied in a communication of 14 September 1984.
2. 445. Paraguay 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. 446. The complainant alleges that during collective bargaining between the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil and the employer's representatives of the same bank, Rolando Duarte, Rodolfo Virgili and Guillermo Cáceres, all members of the trade union in question, were unfairly dismissed.
2. 447. The complainant alleges that alongside these events, 30 members of the union were threatened with dismissal. Faced with this intimidation, the trade union tried by various legal channels to obtain a solution for those members who had been. dismissed or threatened with dismissal. As these attempts failed, the trade union organised a peaceful march of all its members to attract the attention of the general public and express its disapproval in front of the Brazilian Embassy. This march was prevented and violently put down by the police.
3. 448. The complainant also alleges that in spite of the union's repeated demands to the Standing Conciliation and Arbitration Board, the latter has still failed to bring about the renewel of the collective agreement which expired on 31 January 1983.
4. 449. Finally, the complainant encloses a communication from the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil stating that the bank authorities had refused to talk with the trade union, using delaying tactics and thus blocking the way to a peaceful solution to the dispute; furthermore, the Bank had spread rumours to the effect that there was a list of 30 employees who were to be dismissed.

B. The Government's reply

1. 450. The Government states that the Bank of Brazil had informed the Labour Directorate of the dismissal of Rolando Duarte, Adolfo Virgili and Guillermo Cáceres, stating that they had been duly paid off. In view of this situation, the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil and the Paraguayan Federation of Bank Employees, representing their dismissed members, expressed their total' disagreement with the Bank's action. The Labour Directorate attempted to open the way for all possible discussions, acting within the field of competence conferred upon it by law, but, unfortunately, in spite of these good offices, the parties were unable to reach an agreement. Having thus exhausted all the channels offered them by the administrative labour authorities, those workers who considered that their rights had been infringed turned, in accordance with the law, to the Courts.
2. 451. The Government adds that there had been no further accusations against the Bank in question and that the latter had not taken any other measures affecting the trade union or any of its members. In any case, in any situation in which the interests of the working class are involved and especially when these are related to maintaining good relations between employers and workers, the national government takes it upon itself to ensure that the labour provisions in force are applied.
3. 452. The Government also states that before the dismissals took place, as a procedure was underway to clarify a provision related to one of the clauses contained in the existing collective labour agreement between the Bank of Brazil and the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil, the file was submitted to the Standing Conciliation and Arbitration Board for its consideration. After being examined by the Board, all the records of the case were submitted to the Labour Court, where this question is at present being discussed; it is up to the Court to rule in favour of one of the parties.
4. 453. Finally, the Government states that, alongside the legal proceedings carried out by the administrative authorities, the trade union organised peaceful marches with its members; it states that the union was able to carry out this type of action whenever it wished, in complete freedom, without any interference whatsoever from the authorities. The Government states that the allegation that these marches were prevented and violently put down by the police is totally unfounded and constitutes an absurd lie. The Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil used all the means at its disposal to express its concern about the decision taken against the workers in question by the Bank of Brazil.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 454. With respect to the alleged unfair dismissal of Rolando Duarte, Rodolfo Virgili and Guillermo Cáceres, members of the Trade Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil, whilst the latter was in the process of collective bargaining, the Committee notes that in spite of the Labour Directorate's good offices between the trade union and the bank, no agreement could be reached. The Committee also notes that having exhausted all channels with the administrative authorities, those concerned turned to the courts. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the judicial appeal concerning the dismissal of Rolando Duarte, Rodolfo Virgili and Guillermo Cáceres.
2. 455. With respect to the allegation that 30 members of the Union of Employees of the Bank of Brazil were threatened with dismissal, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, this Bank had taken no measures against the members of the trade union. The Committee also notes that according to the documentation sent by the complainant, these threats were allegedly in the form of rumours circulated by the Bank. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.
3. 456. With respect to the allegation that the police had violently put down a peaceful demonstration in front of the Brazilian Embassy to protest against the dismissal of the three persons to whom reference has already been made, the Committee notes that the Government categorically denies these facts. In view of the contradiction of the complainant's allegations in the Government's reply, the Committee is not in a position to formulate-any conclusions on the matter.
4. 457. Finally, the Committee notes the Government's explanations concerning the delay of almost two years in renewing the collective labour agreement between the Bank of Brazil and the trade union. The Committee notes that the points of contention were first submitted to the Standing Conciliation and Arbitration Board and then to the Labour Court, which will rule in favour of one of the parties. In this respect, noting that the complainant stated that the authorities in the Bank of Brazil refused to talk with the trade union and used delaying tactics, on which the Government made no comment, the Committee can only express the hope that the Labour Court will shortly decide the points of contention concerning the collective agreement in question. It draws attention to the obligation on both employers and trade unions to bargain in good faith to come to an agreement and stresses that satisfactory labour relations depend primarily on the attitudes of the parties towards each other and on their mutual confidence [see, for example, 139th Report, Case No. 725 (Japan) para. 279]. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the decision taken by the Labour Court on this case.