Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 360, June 2011

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

1. 20. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2010 meeting and on that occasion requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings and the amparo application concerning the leaders of the Trade Union of “Puntanos” Judicial Employees (SIJUPU), and to send its observations regarding the alleged lack of participation of the SIJUPU in the organization of the Judicial Training Institute [see 358th Report, paras 15–18].
2. 21. In a communication of March 2011, the Government sent the reply of the High Court of Justice of San Luis Province, which stated that its labour policy has been borne out by the fact that, following the election of a new executive committee of the SIJUPU, there have been certain positive developments following a reciprocal proposal for dialogue, referred to by both parties – the union and the High Court of Justice – as the “Dialogue Committee”. The objective of the Committee, whose members are two ministers and trade union representatives, is to seek peaceful alternatives “through dialogue, coordination of efforts, strengthening of projects and a search for solutions for all judicial employees”. In that spirit, as reflected in the certified copy of the presentation made to the High Court of Justice by the SIJUPU, it has been possible to implement the following measures: “reactivation of the judicial career path”; “changing the term ‘length of service’ to ‘judicial status’, to be acquired automatically upon promotion”; “attendance bonus”; “university degree bonus”; “higher education bonus”; “allowance for differently abled staff”; “limit on hours of service to the public during judicial vacation fixed at two hours less (from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.)”, and “transfer of judicial employees to other departments at their request”.
3. 22. In addition, it should be pointed out that the “Dialogue Committee” was instrumental in enabling the peaceful, reasonable and gradual implementation of the demands put forward by the SIJUPU. The High Court of Justice adds that, in view of the above, and of the SIJUPU’s endorsement of the manner in which the proposals made over the years have been handled and gradually resolved (a communication from the SIJUPU referring to the progress achieved as a result of the “Dialogue Committee” is enclosed with the reply), Case No. 2302 should be closed.
4. 23. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction.