Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 238, Marzo 1985

1. 75. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Committee of Trade Union Unity of El Salvador, dated 11 June 1984. The Government replied in a communication of 4 December 1984.
2. 76. El Salvador has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 77. In its communication of 11 June 1984, the complainant alleges that the Judge of the Court of the First Instance in the district of Metapán (Department of Santa Ana) had declared illegal the strike carried out by the workers of the "Cemento de El Salvador, S.A." undertaking (CESSA), ordering an end to the strike by 10 June and the massive dismissal of workers.

B. The Government's reply

1. 78. In its communication of 4 December 1984, the Government transmits a copy of a full and detailed report drawn up by the General Director of Labour of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs on the collective dispute which had arisen in the undertaking "Cemento de El Salvador, S.A." (CESSA). The following information is contained in this report:
   • - On 21 May 1984, the workers in the undertaking "Cemento de El Salvador, S.A." decided to down tools as from seven o'clock because of the various labour problems existing in the undertaking; at a meeting between the representatives of the Trade Union of the El Salvador Cement Industry and the legal representative of the undertaking "Cemento de El Salvador, S.A.", held on the same day at 2 p.m. at the General Labour Directorate, the workers referred to these problems and requested the following: (a) the reinstatement of the worker Santos Humberto Aldana; (b) negotiations on wage increases; (c) the dismissal of the plant Superintendent, the engineer Miguel Peralta, and the Head of the Administration, David Pérez Vanegas; (d) strike pay; and (e) that there should be no reprisals for having taken part in the present strike. At this same meeting, the undertaking's legal adviser explained that the decision to dismiss the worker Santos Humberto Aldana was being upheld, as he had infringed the relevant provisions by not obeying orders to carry out a job; furthermore, in accordance with agreements signed by the undertaking and trade union on 11 April of the current year, the former is entitled to dismiss persons for infringing the legal provisions laid down in the Labour Code, in the internal regulations or in the collective labour agreement; this is a right conferred by law upon the undertaking that may not be waived.
   • - On 5 June 1984, the Judge of the First Instance of Metapán declared that the strike was illegal because the trade union had not brought the "collective dispute of an economic nature" before the General Labour Directorate, as laid down in the Labour Code, to request that the collective labour agreement between the trade union and the CESSA undertaking should be reviewed.
   • - After several meetings between representatives of the Trade Union of the El Salvador Cement Industry and the CESSA undertaking (which, on 30 May 1984, had guaranteed that no reprisals would be taken against the workers on strike), a meeting was held on 8 June 1984 in the office of the Ministry of Labour, attended by members of the Union's bargaining committee, members of the undertaking's Board of Management and - representing the Secretary of State of Labour - the Minister and Vice-Minister of Labour, the General Director of Labour and the General Labour Inspector; this meeting gave the following results: "both parties agreed to come to a total and final agreement on the present dispute, on the following terms: first, David Pérez Vanegas, Head of the Administration, would be temporarily transferred to the plant in Metapán and a tripartite committee (undertaking, workers and Ministry of Labour) would carry out an inquiry into his conduct and submit its conclusions at a later date. Second, with respect to strike pay, the undertaking offered to pay each worker an incentive equivalent to five days' wages. It will also, if the worker wishes, grant a loan up to a maximum of 14 days' wages, which is interest-free and repayable every 14 days up to a maximum period of three months. Third, the undertaking formally agreed not to take any reprisals, either de facto or de jure, against the workers who had taken part in the present dispute. Fourth, both parties agreed to meet on 15 June, to discuss the case of the worker José Santos Aldana and to continue wage negotiations in accordance with the schedule of meetings already agreed upon. Similarly, on the eleventh of this month, they agreed to inform the Ministry of Labour of the persons who will make up the committee of inquiry, to which the first point of the agreement refers. Fifth, the trade union representatives undertook to call off the strike immediately and inform all those workers outside the plant, so that work would be normally resumed at seven o'clock on 9 June of the current year. At 11.30 on 11 June 1984, the trade union appeared before the court to fulfill the first part of the agreement; on 12 June 1984, the undertaking did the same, by means of a statement it submitted."

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 79. The Committee notes that in the present case, the complainant alleges that, on 21 May 1984, the legal authorities declared illegal the strike called by the workers in the undertaking "Cemento de El Salvador, S.A." (CESSA) and ordered the massive dismissal of the workers.
2. 80. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the strike was declared illegal because the trade union had not brought what it calls a "collective dispute of an economic nature" before the General Labour Director, thus failing to comply with the provisions contained in the Labour Code. The Committee also notes that on 8 June 1984, thanks to the intervention of the authorities of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the parties to the dispute reached an agreement putting an end to the dispute and that, in particular, the undertaking agreed not to take reprisals against the workers who had taken part in the strike and the trade union undertook to call off the strike. The Committee also notes from the Government's account of these events that it appears that the undertaking did not dismiss any workers during the strike.
3. 81. In these circumstances, since the collective dispute has been settled in a manner satisfactory to both parties, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.