Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 359, March 2011

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

1. 36. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2010 meeting, when it made the following Recommendations within the context of actions taken by the Metropolitan South Regional Public Prosecution Service as a result of the establishment of the Association of Public Employees of the Metropolitan South Regional Public Prosecution Service (AFFRMS) [see 356th Report, para. 472]:
   • (a) The Committee notes the efforts undertaken by the Government to progress with the resolution of the pending issues.
   • (b) The Committee expects that the Government, as it has indicated, will provide information on the action taken to promote dialogue and collective bargaining between the Regional Public Prosecutor and the complainant association. The Committee also requests the Government to take measures to restore mutual respect between the parties.
   • (c) The Committee deplores the anti-union conduct of the Regional Public Prosecutor as ascertained and penalized by the competent authority and requests the Government to ensure the exercise without hindrance of trade union rights in this public prosecution service and the application of sufficiently dissuasive sanctions so as to prevent this type of conduct.
   • (d) The Committee requests the complainant organizations to indicate whether the seven members referred to who were dismissed and the employees Mr Anguita Carrión and Mr Pérez Jeldres (dismissed) and Ms Caballero Jiménez (private warning) have taken action in the courts against these measures on the grounds of anti-union practices.
   • (e) The Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide the text of the administrative decisions and of any criminal rulings concerning the former trade union leader, Mr César Torres, so that it can review all of the facts.
   • (f) Finally, the Committee requests the Government to transmit any administrative or judicial decisions adopted in relation to the procedures instituted by the Public Prosecutor, Mr Pedro Orthusteguy Hinrichsen, for anti-union practices, on the grounds of his alleged demotion to the level of deputy prosecutor for giving evidence in the procedure relating to anti-union practices by the Regional Public Prosecutor.
2. 37. In its communication dated 18 October 2010, the Government states that the present complaint against the Office of the Public Prosecutor was made as a result of various situations which arose at the time of the establishment of the AFFRMS, and during the period that immediately followed that event, between March 2007 and August 2008. Furthermore, subsequent to this period the said association of public employees had carried out its functions and exercised its rights without any restrictions whatsoever, maintaining a relationship of mutual respect with the regional authorities. The directors of the association made use of the trade union leave granted them by law and the facilities afforded them to allow them to meet with their members and to renew their executives and were received by the authorities of the Regional Public Prosecution Service. Furthermore, the AFFRMS came together with other regional associations of public employees to form the National Federation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, fulfilling its purposes and exercising its rights without any restrictions. Both the AFFRMS and the abovementioned National Federation work with the national authorities of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and are regularly received by those authorities, which encourage their participation in official bodies in their capacity as representatives of the public employees. The Committee notes with interest the information relating to the application of Recommendations (a)–(c).
3. 38. As to an eventual administrative or judicial decision adopted in the light of the procedures instituted by the Public Prosecutor Mr Pedro Orthusteguy Hinrichsen for anti-union practices, the Government states that Mr Orthusteguy has not instituted any administrative or judicial procedures regarding his change in responsibilities. Mr Orthusteguy was appointed Assistant Public Prosecutor grade VI, and while he worked as Head Public Prosecutor of a local Office of the Public Prosecution Service he received grade IV remuneration. In May of 2008 he was transferred to another local Office of the Public Prosecution Service, where he no longer carried out the functions of a Head of Office, and he again received the remuneration corresponding to the grade of his appointment. The Government states that, by legislation, the Regional Public Prosecutor is the sole authority with the power to appoint or maintain prosecutors in the post of Head Prosecutor and, therefore, the Regional Public Prosecutor cannot be accused of anti-union conduct as he was exercising his legal powers. The Committee notes this information, and given that Mr Pedro Orthusteguy has not instituted proceedings for anti-union practices, it will not continue with its examination of this aspect of the case.
4. 39. Finally, the Committee regrets that the complainant organizations have not sent the information requested in Recommendations (d)–(e) since March 2010.