Definitive Report - Report No 400, October 2022

1. 222. The Colombian Trade Union Association of Public Servants and Public Services (ASTDEMP) sent its allegations in communications of 17 April, 2 August and 2 October 2017, and 12 February and 18 September 2018.
2. 223. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 24 May and 12 December 2018, 3 May and 17 September 2019, and 30 September 2022.
3. 224. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 225. The complainant organization alleges that the municipality of Bucaramanga violated the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining by not complying with the collective agreement for 2014–16, restricting collective bargaining in 2017 and 2018, and subjecting the president of ASTDEMP to acts of harassment and death threats.
2. 226. The complainant organization states that ASTDEMP is the majority trade union as it counts 70 per cent of the workers of the municipality of Bucaramanga among its members.
3. 227. The complainant organization alleges that the collective agreement for 2014–16 (Municipal Decree No. 0068 of 2015) has not been applied in good faith by the municipality of Bucaramanga, in a number of respects: (i) the mayor and his secretaries take unilateral decisions without acknowledging the complainant organization as the representative of the workers; (ii) a bipartite committee composed of five representatives of each of the parties, to serve as a direct and preventive mechanism with the purpose of monitoring compliance with the collective agreements, was never established; (iii) the agreed job security for all public employees who are staff members has not been respected, as union members have been dismissed and transferred without respect for minimum safeguards; and (iv) trade union leave has been denied, including to the union’s president.
4. 228. The complainant organization states that it filed the following administrative complaints with the Ministry of Labour: (i) Complaint No. 000858 of 27 January 2016 containing allegations concerning the violation of the collective agreement for 2014–16, the violation of the right to bargain collectively and freedom of association, the refusal to grant union leave, the obligation placed on ASTDEMP by the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga to provide detailed information on the union work to be carried out, the transfer of workers with trade union immunity, and acts of workplace harassment and bullying; this complaint was settled on 21 February 2018 and in response to this decision the complainant organization filed a request for reconsideration and an appeal; (ii) Complaint No. 004951 of 29 April 2016, alleging the violation of collective agreements by transferring staff with occupational diseases and staff with trade union immunity, workplace harassment and the dismissal of workers who are members of ASTDEMP; and (iii) Complaint No. 010792 of 13 September 2016 alleging the refusal to grant union leave to the president of ASTDEMP and other union officials for the purposes of carrying out union work and the violation of the right of assembly, which were matters that had been negotiated in the collective agreements and were set out in Municipal Decrees Nos 203 of 2002, 166 of 2009 and 0068 of 2015. The complainant organization alleges delays in the settlement of these administrative complaints.
5. 229. The complainant organization also filed three complaints with the Office of the Inspector General alleging non-compliance with collective agreements and acts of bullying by the mayor of the municipality of Bucaramanga. It also filed Complaint No. 1758/17 of 9 March 2017 with the Office of the Attorney General alleging violations of the rights of assembly and association, which was closed. The complainant organization requested the Office of the Municipal Comptroller of Bucaramanga to initiate two investigations (Investigations Nos 6461 and 6696 of 14 March and 31 March 2017, respectively) into the use of resources in 2016 that had been earmarked for employee training and welfare and into non-compliance with the collective agreement. The complainant organization also filed the following complaints with the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson of Bucaramanga: (i) Complaint No. 6915 of 12 August 2016, requesting a review of the decision to relocate the posts of police inspectors who are members of ASTDEMP and covered by the collective agreement for 2014–16 and who work in the central administration of the municipality of Bucaramanga; (ii) Complaint No. 2513 of 3 November 2016, referring the complaints filed against the municipality of Bucaramanga; and (iii) Complaint No. 1878 of 14 March 2017, requesting that an investigation be launched into the municipality of Bucaramanga for non-compliance with the collective agreement for 2014 16, which was set out in Municipal Decree No. 0068 of 14 May 2015. The complainant organization states that no sanctions have been applied against the municipality of Bucaramanga. Furthermore, the complainant organization alleges that, on 29 June 2017, the municipality of Bucaramanga failed to acknowledge the existence of a collective agreement between ASTDEMP and the municipality.
6. 230. The complainant organization also alleges that the municipality of Bucaramanga restricted the right to bargain collectively by issuing Resolution No. 0293 of 15 August 2017, “setting the conditions for public employees for 2017”, even though the complainant organization had not participated in the collective bargaining process. In response, the complainant organization initiated the following legal action: (i) a writ for the protection of constitutional rights filed on 30 August 2017 before the Fourth Municipal Criminal Court for Adolescents with Responsibility for Ensuring Due Process of Bucaramanga, which is currently under appeal, in which ASTDEMP states that, in exercising its trade union autonomy, it separated itself from the other public servants’ unions in the municipality of Bucaramanga and decided not to submit the list of demands for the collective agreement for 2017, since its interest lay in applying the agreement set out in Municipal Decree No. 0068 of 2015; and (ii) Administrative Complaint No. 008745 of 30 August 2017 to the Territorial Directorate of Santander of the Ministry of Labour.
7. 231. In its communication of 12 February 2018, the complainant organization also alleges acts of harassment by the municipality of Bucaramanga and death threats against Ms Martha Cecilia Díaz Suárez, president of ASTDEMP, stating that: (i) Ms Díaz Suárez has been subjected to death threats on several occasions, including on 29 September 2017; (ii) a procedure to lift her trade union immunity was initiated against her, which was rejected by the courts of first and second instance; (iii) a surveillance camera that was supposed to be for the protection of Ms Díaz Suárez was in fact used to monitor her activity as the president of ASTDEMP; and (iv) these acts of harassment and threats have seriously affected the mental health of the president of ASTDEMP. The complainant organization adds to these allegations in a communication of 18 September 2018, in which it states that Ms Díaz Suárez has been the victim of accusations and bullying by: (i) an external adviser of the municipality of Bucaramanga, which is of concern to the complainant organization, given that Ms Díaz Suárez has already been accused of rebellion, even though the case was closed due to a lack of evidence; and (ii) a representative of the municipality, who seemed to think that Ms Díaz Suárez had participated in an armed blockade when she was absent from work because she was unable to get to her workplace due to an armed blockade by groups operating outside the law.
8. 232. In a communication of 18 September 2018, the complainant organization provides additional information on the allegation of violations of the right to bargain collectively during the 2018 bargaining process, stating that: (i) after the first 20 days of collective bargaining, the municipality of Bucaramanga terminated the negotiations; (ii) the municipality rejected the request by the trade union organizations to appoint a mediator, as provided for in Decree No. 160 of 2014; and (iii) on 15 August 2018, the municipality unilaterally issued Resolution No. 198, “setting the conditions for public employees for 2018”.
9. 233. The complainant organization lastly reports that, on 12 December 2017, together with the mayor of Bucaramanga, it appeared before the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT), but no agreement was reached as the representatives of the municipality of Bucaramanga were interested only in imposing their views. As a result, the complainant organization refused to sign the record of the meeting.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 234. In its communication of 24 May 2018, the Government submits the information provided by the municipality of Bucaramanga and states that: (i) the Ministry of Labour is the authority that is competent to review allegations of non-compliance with a collective agreement; and (ii) in the event of alleged violations of the right to freedom of association, labour inspectors may, within the scope of their competence, initiate a punitive administrative procedure to establish whether or not a violation took place and to determine the penalty accordingly. With regard to the allegations of non-compliance with collective labour agreements and the proceedings initiated by the complainant organization, the municipality of Bucaramanga states that it has not been notified of any official proceedings before the Ministry of Labour for alleged non-compliance with collective agreements.
2. 235. In its communication of 12 December 2018, the Government transmits the information submitted by the municipality of Bucaramanga on the allegation concerning the refusal to grant trade union leave and acts of harassment against the president of ASTDEMP, stating that: (i) since 2016, Ms Díaz Suárez had not requested permanent trade union leave, but rather leave for particular events, which has been granted in accordance with the law; and (ii) the surveillance camera was installed to meet the security requirements of Ms Díaz Suárez but was removed in the light of allegations that the camera in question was being used for the purposes of harassment in proceedings before the Office of the Municipal Ombudsman of Bucaramanga.
3. 236. The Government provided its information on the administrative complaints filed by ASTDEMP with the Ministry of Labour. First, with regard to Complaints Nos 00858 and 010792, a case was opened on 12 February 2016 which covered both complaints and an investigation was carried out, which resulted in Resolution No. 000258 of 28 February 2017 ordering the closure of the preliminary inquiries on the following grounds: (i) based on the material evidence, the Ministry of Labour noted that it was not authorized to hand down a decision in disputes involving the assessment of legal criteria, as in the present case, which includes alleged violations of the collective agreement for 2014–16; (ii) with regard to the allegation concerning the refusal to grant trade union leave, and further to an examination of various previous decisions, the Ministry of Labour stated that, together with the Administrative Department of the Public Service, it issued Circular No. 0098 of 26 December 2007, stating that “both the right of association and the exercise of the public service have constitutional connotations [...] which is why trade union leave must be planned and justified, so that the trade union organization has the necessary time to carry out the appropriate trade union activity, without unduly impacting service delivery”; (iii) public servants appointed by trade union organizations are entitled to union leave on a temporary and not a permanent basis; this does not exempt them from providing the service they are obliged to provide; and (iv) in the light of the above, the Ministry of Labour considered it appropriate to close the preliminary inquiry, as there were no grounds for initiating a punitive administrative procedure; this has not affected the right of ASTDEMP to bring the matter before the competent court to defend its rights. Second, with regard to Administrative Complaint No. 004951 of 29 April 2016 concerning violations of collective agreements by transferring staff with occupational diseases and staff with trade union immunity, workplace harassment and the dismissal of workers who are members of ASTDEMP: (i) the Ministry of Labour opened a case and launched an investigation on 30 June 2016, which resulted in Resolution No. 001230 of 26 August 2016 closing the preliminary inquiries, as it was found that, as specifically stipulated in the case law and in accordance with the accounts of what happened and the evidence that came to light during the preliminary inquiry, the act of anti-union harassment does not fall within the scope of the regulations in force; (ii) regarding the alleged dismissals, evidence was found of a legal dispute that does not fall within the competence of the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry stated that ASTDEMP could bring the matter before the competent legal authority in order to defend its rights; and (iii) ASTDEMP filed a request for reconsideration but this request was rejected by Resolution No. 001802 of 30 November 2016 owing to its late submission.
4. 237. In its communication of 3 May 2019, the Government reaffirms that the municipality of Bucaramanga reported that, by Resolution No. 000194 of 21 February 2018, the Ministry of Labour ordered the closure of Administrative Complaint No. 00858. The Government states in this regard that: (i) the investigation process that gave rise to Resolution No. 000194 of the Ministry of Labour was carried out in accordance with legal parameters and a decision was made on the basis of the evidence in the case file and in accordance with the law; (ii) the complainant organization was notified and filed a request for reconsideration and an appeal, which were settled by the competent officials; (iii) should the complainant organization disagree with this decision, the legislative authority has put mechanisms in place for determining the lawfulness or unlawfulness of administrative decisions, which is a matter for the administrative courts; and (iv) there is no evidence that the complainant organization has exhausted domestic remedies. With regard to the closure of the case filed with the Office of the Attorney General, the Government states that the Office of the Attorney General replied to ASTDEMP explaining the procedure to be followed in order to reopen the case.
5. 238. The Government then transmits information from the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson, which received several complaints from the complainant organization, and states that: (i) in respect of Complaints Nos 1878 and 2513, in which ASTDEMP requested an investigation against the municipality of Bucaramanga for non-compliance with the collective agreement for 2014–16, which was set out in Municipal Decree No. 0068 of 14 May 2015, the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson initiated disciplinary proceedings on behalf of the Office of the Designated Ombudsperson for Administrative Oversight, and the matter is currently at the disciplinary investigation stage; and (ii) in respect of Complaint No. 6915 of 2016, in which ASTDEMP requested a review of the relocation of the police inspectors working in the central administration of the municipality of Bucaramanga, the human rights delegate organized a working group with the secretariats responsible for internal, administrative and legal affairs in the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga, at which information was provided setting out the legal reasons and grounds taken into account by the administration when relocating these police inspectors, which was shared with ASTDEMP.
6. 239. With regard to the allegation concerning the violation of freedom of association and collective bargaining as a result of the issuance of Resolution No. 0293 of 15 August 2017, “setting the conditions for public employees for 2017”, the municipality of Bucaramanga and the Government state that: (i) the complainant organization filed a writ for the protection of constitutional rights before the Fourth Municipal Criminal Court for Adolescents with Responsibility for Ensuring Due Process of Bucaramanga (No. 2017-00108); (ii) the complainant organization states that it was in fact the beneficiary of collective agreements that were in force from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016; (iii) collective bargaining for 2017 was carried out with other trade union organizations; (iv) this is because, according to ASTDEMP, unlike other trade union organizations, it refrained from participating in the preparation of joint lists of demands, claiming that the municipality should therefore respect the provisions of the collective agreement for 2014–16, in whose negotiation it did participate, that the agreement should be extended indefinitely and that Resolution No. 0293 should be declared null and void; and (v) in its decision, the Fourth Municipal Criminal Court for Adolescents with Responsibility for Ensuring Due Process of Bucaramanga (No. 2017-00108) acknowledged that ASTDEMP did not present a list of demands and did not participate in the bargaining process; it therefore considered that the municipality of Bucaramanga had not violated the right to bargain collectively and that ASTDEMP had in fact withdrawn from the bargaining process that had been initiated and had not been excluded by the municipality of Bucaramanga. Specifically, the Government states that this decision takes into account that: (i) ASTDEMP requested the municipality to “modify, revoke or overturn the resolution setting the new working conditions for the current year, since in its understanding the text removed acquired labour and trade union safeguards and undermined the achievements made in these areas”, and (ii) in issuing the administrative decision, which was “of a special and specific nature, the public authority was seeking to uphold the added value of the decent working conditions that had been achieved through labour conquests and negotiated with other workers’ organizations that did participate, as the trade union organization that is the complainant in this case withdrew from the negotiation process that had been initiated and refrained from supporting the other workers’ organizations at a point when they could have worked together to iron out the differences with the employer [...]”. Furthermore, the municipality of Bucaramanga explains that the labour agreement for 2014–16 contained 58 clauses that were fulfilled during the period in question and stresses that the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga respects the 14 organizations that are represented in its territory. In this regard, the municipality of Bucaramanga states that, together with the complainant organization, it appeared before the CETCOIT but no agreement was reached.
7. 240. In relation to the alleged violation of the right to bargain collectively as a result of the unilateral issuance of Resolution No. 198 “setting the conditions for public employees for 2018”, the municipality of Bucaramanga states that: (i) the terms for collective bargaining in the public sector are governed by Decree No. 160 of 2014, which provides that the initial 20-day period can be extended by mutual agreement and, if no agreement is reached by the end of that period, the parties may agree to appoint a mediator; (ii) both the extension and the appointment of a mediator are optional and subject to mutual agreement; (iii) the office of the mayor respected the minimum period required by law in the negotiations and decided not to appoint a mediator; and (iv) the municipality of Bucaramanga, therefore, met the mandatory conditions and there was no violation of the collective bargaining process. The Government states that, if the complainant organization did not agree with the administrative decision in question, it could have taken the matter to the administrative disputes court, but it seems from the documentation provided that it did not do so.
8. 241. The Government, in its communication of 3 May 2019, transmits information from the municipality of Bucaramanga concerning the allegations of trade union harassment, including accusations and bullying, and the procedure to lift the trade union immunity of Ms Díaz Suárez, president of ASTDEMP, stating that: (i) the municipality brought the action to lift the trade union immunity of this individual in order to defend the municipality’s interests, in the exercise of its rights, and that this decision cannot be seen as a violation of trade union rights; (ii) the Fifth Labour Court of the Bucaramanga Circuit denied the request in the first instance, which was upheld in the second instance; (iii) the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga complied with the decision; (iv) the findings of the external adviser do not suggest that any type of accusation has been levelled against this individual; and (v) regarding the alleged comments by a representative of the municipality of Bucaramanga concerning the absence from work of Ms Díaz Suárez, there is nothing in the letter on the matter to suggest that any accusation was levelled against her, as the text simply states that “in view of the circumstances of the armed blockage on 13 February, which was the reason given for her not reporting to work, it is found that this is a justified reason for absence [...] although it is surprising that a person benefiting from a protection measure could not make this type of journey under the circumstances in question”.
9. 242. Regarding the death threats against Ms Díaz Suárez, the president of ASTDEMP, the Government states in its communication of 17 September 2019, that: (i) it inquired with the National Protection Unit, which reported that it had taken the threats into account by carrying out a further risk assessment; (ii) since 10 October 2018, various protection measures have been put in place for this individual and her immediate family, including the provision of an armoured vehicle and two bodyguards, a means of communication and a bullet-proof vest, and the implementation of preventive measures; and (iii) these measures have been maintained.
10. 243. In a communication of 30 September 2022, the Government transmitted additional information from the municipality of Bucaramanga in relation to the alleged violation of the right to bargain collectively, stating that: (i) in a first instance decision, the Fourth Family Court of Bucaramanga ordered the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga to set up a collective bargaining process within 15 days and to seek a rapprochement with the trade union organizations (decision of 26 June 2019); (ii) by two administrative decisions, the mayor of Bucaramanga appointed the persons responsible for representing the municipality in the negotiations to reach an agreement on working conditions with the trade unions of public employees (Resolutions Nos 228 and 338 of 16 July and 2 October 2019, respectively); (iii) on 23 September 2019, negotiations began between the municipality and the trade union organizations, including ASTDEMP, and meetings were held to advance the negotiations on the joint list of demands (the minutes of the meetings of 3, 7, 10, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28 and 31 October 2019 are attached hereto); (iv) once the negotiation stage had concluded and all the points on the list of demands had been discussed, the final collective agreement was signed on 1 November 2019 by the municipality of Bucaramanga and most of the trade union organizations, including ASTDEMP (the final agreement of 1 November 2019 is attached hereto); (v) the final agreement resulting from the collective bargaining process was set out in an administrative decision by means of Resolution No. 406 of 25 November 2019 “setting the conditions for public employees for 2019 and 2020”; and (vi) for 2021, the members of the bargaining committee representing the trade union organizations, including ASTDEMP, and the municipality of Bucaramanga set a schedule for the negotiations, which took place between April and May 2021, and as a result of the collective bargaining process an administrative decision was issued through Resolution No. 786 of 8 July 2021 “setting the conditions for public employees for 2021–23”. The municipality also states that, in 2022, follow-up meetings have been held with the trade union organizations to monitor compliance with the collective agreement for 2021–23 and round tables for dialogue have been held to address the needs of public servants and to reaffirm that they can always turn to the municipal administration, which will respond effectively.
11. 244. In the same communication, the Government transmits additional information from the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson of Bucaramanga, stating that: (i) Complaint No. 1878, which led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings (No. 066-17) by the Office of the Designated Ombudsperson for Administrative Oversight and Disciplinary Matters for non-compliance with the collective agreement for 2014–16, was definitively closed by an order of 21 January 2019, this is because the evidence gathered during the proceedings demonstrated that the municipality of Bucaramanga had complied for the most part with the collective agreement for 2014–16; (ii) the order of 21 January 2019 was notified to Ms Díaz Suárez, the president of ASTDEMP, on 25 January 2019, with the information that she could appeal if she considered it necessary to do so; and (iii) on 7 February 2019, the decision taken by the Office of the Designated Ombudsperson for Administrative Oversight and Disciplinary Matters became final and enforceable, as the time limit for filing an appeal had expired and no appeal had been filed.
12. 245. The Government reiterates that the administrative complaints referred to in the complaint and processed by the Bucaramanga Territorial Directorate of the Ministry of Labour have already been settled.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 246. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainant organization alleges that the municipality of Bucaramanga violated the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining by not complying with the collective agreement for 2014–16, placing restrictions on collective bargaining in 2017 and 2018, and subjecting the president of ASTDEMP to acts of harassment and death threats. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government states that a collective agreement was negotiated in 2019 and was in force for the period 2019–20, that there is currently a collective agreement for 2021–23, and that ASTDEMP is among the signatory organizations of both of these agreements, that the administrative complaints concerning the allegations of non-compliance with the collective agreement for 2014–16 have been settled and that protection measures have been taken in relation to the president of ASTDEMP.
2. 247. The Committee takes note of the complainant organization’s allegations of non-compliance with the collective agreement for 2014–16, according to which (i) the mayor and his secretaries take unilateral decisions without acknowledging the complainant organization as the representative of the workers; (ii) a bipartite committee composed of five representatives of each of the parties, which would serve as a direct and preventive mechanism with the purpose of monitoring compliance with the collective agreements, was never established; (iii) the agreed job security for all public employees who are staff members has not been respected, as union members have been dismissed and transferred without respect for minimum safeguards; and (iv) trade union leave has been denied, including to the union’s president.
3. 248. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the complainant organization stating that it has filed several administrative labour complaints with the Ministry of Labour in relation to the allegations in the present case, and of the statements by the complainant organization regarding the delays in the settlement of these complaints.
4. 249. The Committee notes that the municipality of Bucaramanga and the Government state that: (i) the collective agreement for 2014–16 contained 58 clauses that were fulfilled by the municipality of Bucaramanga during the period 2014–16 when the agreement was in force; (ii) Administrative Complaint No. 00858 gave rise to an investigation that was carried out in accordance with legal parameters and resulted in a decision to close the complaint, in response to which ASTDEMP filed a request for reconsideration and an appeal, which were settled by the officials that were competent in that regard; (iii) Complaints Nos 1878 and 2513 were filed with the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson of Bucaramanga and disciplinary proceedings were initiated on behalf of the Office of the Designated Ombudsperson for Administrative Oversight, and the matter is currently at the disciplinary investigation stage; and (iv) in respect of Complaint No. 6915 of 2016, the human rights delegate organized a working group with the secretariats responsible for internal, administrative and legal affairs in the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga, at which information was provided setting out the legal reasons and grounds taken into account by the administration when relocating the police inspectors who are members of ASTDEMP and covered by the collective agreement for 2014–16 and who work in the central administration of the municipality of Bucaramanga.
5. 250. The Committee takes note of the additional information provided by the municipality of Bucaramanga, which was transmitted by the Government on 30 September 2022, indicating that: (i) Complaint No. 1878 filed with the Office of the Municipal Ombudsperson of Bucaramanga was definitively closed by order of 21 January 2019, on the grounds that the municipality had demonstrated that it had complied for the most part with the collective agreement for 2014–16; and (ii) on 7 February 2019, that decision became final and enforceable, as the time limit for filing an appeal had expired and ASTDEMP had not filed an appeal.
6. 251. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s assertion that all the administrative complaints filed with the Ministry of Labour have been settled, which has not affected the right of ASTDEMP to bring the matter before the competent court to defend its rights in respect of the allegations which the Ministry of Labour considered not to fall within its competence. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information concerning the three complaints filed by the complainant organization with the Office of the Inspector General or the two requests for investigations filed with the Office of the Municipal Comptroller of Bucaramanga concerning the alleged acts of bullying by the mayor of the municipality of Bucaramanga and non-compliance with collective agreements. The Committee recalls that agreements should be binding on the parties and that mutual respect for the commitment undertaken in collective agreements is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, paras 1334 and 1336]. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to expedite the settlement of the proceedings in question that have still not been settled, in relation to the allegations made in the present case.
7. 252. The Committee takes note of the allegations by the complainant organization concerning restrictions to collective bargaining in 2017 and 2018 by the municipality of Bucaramanga, according to which: (i) ASTDEMP is the majority trade union as it counts 70 per cent of the workers of the municipality of Bucaramanga among its members; (ii) in 2017, the municipality of Bucaramanga issued Resolution No. 0293 of 15 August 2017, “setting the conditions for public employees for 2017”, even though ASTDEMP had not participated in the collective bargaining process; (iii) in 2018, after failing to reach agreement in the bargaining process, the municipality rejected the request by the trade union organizations to appoint a mediator to settle the dispute; (iv) mediation is provided for in Decree No. 160 of 2014; and (v) on 15 August 2018, the municipality unilaterally issued Resolution No. 198 “setting the conditions for public employees for 2018”. The Committee notes from the information provided by the complainant organization that ASTDEMP withdrew from the collective bargaining process in 2017, as its intention was to retain the collective agreement that had been negotiated and was in force for 2014–16.
8. 2453. With regard to this allegation, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government, stating that: (i) ASTDEMP refrained from participating in the bargaining process for 2017 and, unlike the other trade union organizations in the municipality, it did not submit a list of demands; (ii) in its decision, the Fourth Municipal Criminal Court for Adolescents with Responsibility for Ensuring Due Process of Bucaramanga confirmed ASTDEMP’s refusal to participate in the process, and therefore it did not consider that the municipality of Bucaramanga had violated the right to bargain collectively; and (iii) in the collective bargaining process in 2018, the municipality of Bucaramanga met the mandatory requirement that collective bargaining must take place over a period of 20 days, which may be extended by mutual agreement, thereby complying with the minimum period required by law, and decided not to extend the negotiation period and not to appoint a mediator.
9. 254. Furthermore, the Committee takes due note of the additional information provided by the municipality of Bucaramanga, transmitted by the Government in a communication dated 30 September 2022, stating that: (i) the Fourth Family Court of Bucaramanga issued a first instance decision ordering the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga to set up a collective bargaining process within 15 days and to seek a rapprochement with the trade union organizations (ruling of 26 June 2019); (ii) by two administrative decisions, the mayor of Bucaramanga appointed the persons responsible for representing the municipality in the negotiations to reach an agreement on working conditions with the trade unions of public employees (Resolutions Nos 228 and 338 of 16 July and 2 October 2019, respectively); (iii) on 23 September 2019, negotiations began between the municipality and the trade union organizations, including ASTDEMP, and meetings were held to advance the negotiations on the joint list of demands (the minutes of the meetings of 3, 7, 10, 15, 17, 21, 24, 28 and 31 October 2019 are attached hereto); (iv) once the negotiation stage had concluded and all the points on the list of demands had been discussed, the final collective agreement was signed on 1 November 2019 by the municipality of Bucaramanga and most of the trade union organizations, including ASTDEMP (the final agreement of 1 November 2019 is attached hereto); (v) the final agreement resulting from the collective bargaining process was set out in an administrative decision by means of Resolution No. 406 of 25 November 2019 “setting the conditions for public employees for 2019 and 2020”; and (vi) for 2021, the members of the bargaining committee representing the trade union organizations, including ASTDEMP, and the municipality of Bucaramanga set a schedule for the negotiations, which took place between April and May 2021 and as a result of the collective bargaining process an administrative decision was issued through Resolution No. 786 of 8 July 2021 “setting the conditions for public employees for 2021–23”. The Committee also takes due note of the municipality’s assertions that, in 2022, follow-up meetings have been held with the trade union organizations to monitor compliance with the collective agreement for 2021–23 and that round tables for dialogue have been held to address the needs of public servants.
10. 255. The Committee also notes that a collective agreement was negotiated in 2019 that was in force for the period 2019–20 and that there is currently a collective agreement in force for 2021–23, and that ASTDEMP is among the signatory organizations of both of these agreements. In the light of the above, the Committee notes that the collective bargaining difficulties alleged in the present case have been overcome and, therefore, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.
11. 256. With regard to the allegation of acts of harassment against the president of ASTDEMP, specifically the procedure initiated by the municipality of Bucaramanga to lift her trade union immunity, the Committee notes that the municipality of Bucaramanga states that, in both the first and second instances, the courts did not authorize the lifting of her trade union immunity and that the corresponding decision was complied with and respected by the office of the mayor of Bucaramanga. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue further the examination of this allegation.
12. 257. Lastly, the Committee notes with concern the allegation of death threats against Ms Martha Cecilia Díaz Suárez, president of ASTDEMP. The Committee takes note of the Government’s account of the protection measures that have been taken, which cover her immediate family and which are still in place. Recalling that the exercise of trade union rights is incompatible with violence or threats of any kind and it is for the authorities to investigate without delay and, if necessary, penalize any act of this kind [see Compilation, para. 88], the Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation with a view to establishing the facts and punishing the perpetrators of the death threats against Ms Díaz Suárez, president of ASTDEMP, and to continue to take any measures that may be necessary to ensure her protection.