Informe provisional - Informe núm. 217, Junio 1982

1. 540. The Committee examined these complaints at its meeting in February 1982 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. Since then, the Government has sent two communications, one on 10 March 1982 shortly after the Committee's meeting and another on 15 April 1982. The Trade Union of Workers of ICASA and Branches also communicated information to the Committee on 23 February 1982.
2. 541. Colombia has ratified both 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 542. All the complainants in this case alleged that antiunion reprisals had been taken against union leaders and members in various metal industry enterprises.
2. 543. Specifically, they explained that, following a two-hour general strike called by one of the Colombian union federations on 13 May 1981, the treasurer of the National Federation of Metalworkers (FENTRAMETAL), José Joaquim Romero, had been arrested and handed over to the military tribunal. Since then, he has been held in the Bogotá "national model prison" without having been either tried or sentenced.
3. 544. The complainants added that about 350 trade unionists had been dismissed either as a result of the 13 May strike or in connection with other labour disputes.
4. 545. During its previous examination of the case, the Committee noted that, without denying the arrest of José Joaquim Romero, the Government had replied that it was carrying out an inquiry to determine his legal position.
5. 546. With regard to the alleged dismissals, the Committee noted with some concern that complaints concerning the dismissal of trade unionists for putting forward trade union demands in various sectors of the economy had been referred to it on several occasions already. The Committee, taking due note of the specific information concerning certain matters communicated to it by the Government, observed that, in the case of the COLPRA company of Barranquilla, the Minister of Labour had in fact, in order to put an end to the strike taking place there, convened a compulsory arbitration board which had not at that stage handed down an award. Furthermore, the Government had stated that, in the case of the Inca bodywork plant, the competent authority had ruled that dismissals had taken place without due grounds and had ordered an inquiry into anti-union harassment.
6. 547. In these circumstances, the Committee, at its meeting in February 1982, recommended the Governing Body to request the Government to keep it informed of developments in the case of José Joaquím Romero, treasurer of FENTRAMETAL, who was being held in the Bogotá national model prison following a two-hour general strike on 13 May 1981, and emphasised the danger of serious interference in trade union activities that could result from the detention without trial of trade unionists.
7. 548. Regarding the alleged anti-union dismissals, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that employers strictly observed Colombian law, which provided that the dismissal of a worker benefiting from trade union immunity could be authorised only by the competent judge. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the dispute in the COLPRA Company and of the inquiry into anti-union harassment in the Inca bodywork plant.

B. New developments

1. 549. The Trade Union of workers of ICASA and branches, in a communication dated 23 February 1982, transmitted a copy of a letter that it had sent to the President of Colombia regarding the situation of the leader of the National Federation of Workers of Colombia, José Joaquím Romero, who is being held on charges which it claims have never been proved, requesting the President to authorise his release.
2. 550. In a communication dated 10 March 1982, the Government states that José Joaquím Romero has been legally detained on the orders of the commander of the Military Institutes Brigade, that he has been charged with rebellion and that he will shortly be appearing before a court martial. It adds that any person who commits acts defined by law as criminal offences, irrespective of his union status, will be arrested and charged in accordance with the legislation in force. Finally, the Government states that José Joaquím Romero could benefit from the amnesty granted by the President of the Republic if he decides to accept the conditions laid down in the amnesty decree.
3. 551. In a communication dated 15 April 1982, the Government adds that José Joaquim Romero has been charged with offences against the Constitutional regime and against the internal security of the State. It does not, however, provide any details regarding the circumstances of his arrest or the specific charges against him.
4. 552. Regarding the labour disputes still pending, the Government confirms that, in the case of the Inca bodywork plant dispute, the General Directorate of Labour has declared the dismissals to be collective dismissals and has fined the company $10,000 in accordance with section 41 of legislative Decree No. 2351 of 1965. The Government adds that the claims for compensation to which the workers are entitled must be lodged with the labour tribunal in accordance with the terms of the said Decree and of Regulatory Decree No. 1469 of 1978.
5. 553. According to the Government, workers benefiting from trade union immunity who have been dismissed without prior authorisation by the labour judge may appeal to the ordinary labour tribunal (section 114 et seq. of the Labour Code) to be reinstated in their jobs. It states that, under the law, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security is not competent to pass judgement on such matters. It does not indicate whether the dismissed trade unionists have in fact officially lodged an appeal.
6. 554. As regards the labour dispute in the COLPRA metal company of Barranquilla, the Government states that a collective agreement was registered with the Ministry on 26 March 1982. Although it does not provide any further information, it would appear that the dispute has been resolved.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 555. The Committee notes with concern that the trade union leader and treasurer of FENTRAMETAL who was arrested on 13 May 1981 has been in prison for a year on the orders of the armed forces, that his case has not yet been judged and that, according to the Government, he will shortly be brought before a court martial. The Government states, however, that he may benefit from an amnesty.
2. 556. The Committee recalls that, like other persons, trade unionists must be entitled to a fair trial within the shortest possible time. In this case, the Committee can only observe that neither the complainants, who have merely stated that the person concerned was arrested on 13 May 1981 following a two-hour general strike called by one of the trade union federations, nor the Government, which states that the person concerned has been charged with rebellion and offences against the Constitutional regime and against the internal security of the State without providing any other information, have supplied any details concerning the circumstances of this trade union leader's arrest.
3. 557. The Committee has observed in the past that the preventive detention of trade unionists on the ground that breaches of the law may take place in connection with a strike involves a serious danger of infringement of trade union rights. It reminds the Government that it has always considered that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests. Consequently, the conditions that have to be fulfilled, under the law, in order to render a strike lawful have to be reasonable and, in any event, must not be such as to place restrictions on the possibility of taking strike action outside essential services in the strict sense of the term - that is, those services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The metal sector, to which the union leader under arrest belongs, is not an essential service in which the right of workers to promote and defend their interests by means of strike action may be prohibited.
4. 558. In this case, the Committee notes the Government's statement that José Joaquim Romero could benefit from an amnesty and expresses the firm hope that he will be released in the near future; the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this respect.
5. 559. Regarding the alleged dismissal of union leaders by the Inca bodywork company, the Committee notes the Government's statement that workers benefiting from trade union immunity who have been dismissed without prior authorisation by the labour judge may lodge an appeal with the ordinary labour tribunal to he reinstated in their jobs. It also notes that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour is not competent to pass judgement on such matters. The Committee further observes that the Government does not mention whether appeals have in fact been lodged by the persons concerned.
6. 560. The Committee recalls that, when the Government ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), it undertook not only to adopt efficient standards and procedures prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination, such as are in fact currently embodied in Colombian legislation, but also to ensure the application of the legal provisions in practice.
7. 561. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour is not competent to pass judgement on such matters. On this particular point the Committee considers, on the contrary, that it is the Government's own responsibility to ensure the application of Article 1 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Colombia, and to take steps to ensure that employers do not dismiss any workers benefiting from trade union immunity without prior authorisation by the judge, in accordance with the law.
8. 562. The Committee further notes with interest that a collective agreement has been adopted in the COLPRA Company. It therefore appears that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.