Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 287, Junio 1993

1. 24. The complaint was submitted in a joint communication dated 27 February 1992 from the Inter-Trade Union Assembly - Workers' National Convention (PIT-CNT), the Union of Workers, Employees and Supervisory Personnel of the Uruguyan Tyre Factory (FUNSA Trade Union) and the Uruguay Rubber Federation (F.C. del U.). These organizations submitted further information in a communication of July 1992. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 14 January 1993.
2. 25. Uruguay has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 26. In their communication of 27 February 1992, the complainants allege that the Government's recent liberalization policy, which includes the removal of measures to protect the nation's industry and the integration of Uruguay in the MERCOSUR (common market of the southern cone), has initiated processes of reorganization, industrial restructuring and probable regional agreements with multinational corporations. For this reason, on 30 April 1991 the Uruguay Tyre Factory cancelled the existing collective agreement, causing a collective dispute, with workers put on unemployment insurance rolls and subsequently a sit-down strike. The dispute was resolved through a temporary agreement in force until the end of 1991. The complainants add that after the employer's refusal to reinstate the workers put on unemployment, its obstruction of bargaining on the workers' cooperative for the footwear sector and its refusal to negotiate a collective agreement, a new dispute broke out with rotating strikes and all workers being put on unemployment. After the plant was occupied by the workers and they were removed by the police, in January 1992 the enterprise dismissed 73 workers, including 21 trade union officials who were on unemployment in December 1991.
2. 27. The complainants point out that the Government proposed a settlement, which the trade union rejected on the grounds that it allowed the dismissal of the 73 workers (including the 21 trade union officials) without taking into consideration trade union immunity. They add that the Government did not investigate the matter to determine whether there had been a breach of freedom of association.
3. 28. In their communication of July 1992 the complainants point out that an agreement reinstating some of the dismissed officials was finally reached with the enterprise, and that the Government actively participated in the negotiations which led to the final agreement. None the less, they criticize the Government for neither investigating nor taking a stand on the dismissal of trade union officials, and maintain that these were anti-union dismissals. Finally, the complainants state that the dispute at the FUNSA enterprise demonstrates that Uruguayan law does not grant effective protection to trade union officials.

B. The Government's reply

1. 29. In its communication of 14 January 1993 the Government states that in the dispute between the FUNSA enterprise and its workers the Ministry of Labour and Social Security held protracted and intense negotiations with both parties to reach an agreement, and that its participation was decisive in concluding the final agreement of 18 March 1992. According to documentation sent with the communication, this included several meetings at the Ministry, the presentation of settlement proposals by the Ministry, requests for reports from the enterprise, and the inspection by the Ministry of environmental and working conditions at the enterprise.
2. 30. The Government states that the final agreement was reached according to a formula worked out by the three parties, and denies that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security accepted the dismissal of trade union officials during the negotiations. It points out that the parties agreed that the dismissals were caused by an excess of manpower, and that it considered that it should not take a stand on the matter or investigate it, in so far as the parties had been engaged in negotiations and reached an agreement; it considered that it would be inappropriate to disregard the will of the parties. The Government points out that according to the report (which it encloses) requested by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security from the FUNSA enterprise on its situation and prospects, the company faced serious problems adapting to the national and international markets (domestic recession, import of better-priced tyres, reduction of exports, etc.) and so decided to cut back its staff.
3. 31. Finally, the Government states that the Uruguayan industrial relations system has special characteristics since it has no standards for trade union rights, and it emphasizes the need to establish clear rules for the protection of trade union officials. The Government has given this matter consideration in various bills it submitted to Parliament.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 32. As regards the alleged deficiency of Uruguayan legislation regarding protection against anti-trade union discrimination, the Committee refers to the conclusions it reached on this subject at its May 1992 meeting concerning Case No. 1596 (Uruguay), which reads as follows: (see 283rd Report, paras. 372 and 373):
   • As regards the allegation concerning the lack of legislative guarantees against anti-union discrimination, the Committee, at its February 1990 Session, considered that the current system of protection against anti-union practices (heavy fines in the case of anti-union dismissals, administrative orders to reinstate workers so dismissed and the possibility of closing down the enterprise) "does not infringe Convention No. 98" but "could be improved in so far as accelerating the procedure". (See 270th Report, Case No. 1460 (Uruguay), para. 60.)
   • The Committee has noted the reasons for which the Government deems it desirable and necessary to have clear and precise rules of the various aspects of collective labour law since at the moment there are only very few statutory provisions in this area. In this regard, the Committee wishes to point out that its mandate consists in determining whether any given legislation or practice complies with the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining laid down in the relevant Conventions and that it is not within its terms of reference to give an opinion on the type or characteristics - including the degree of legislataive regulation - to be followed by the industrial relations system in any particular country. The Committee requests the Government to submit any draft law on freedom of association and collective bargaining to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations so that it may examine it in the context of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.
2. 33. The Committee observes that the other allegations refer to the anti-trade union dismissal of 52 workers and 21 trade union officials from the FUNSA enterprise, after various sit-down strikes which occurred because of a collective dispute that began in April 1991, and after the Government's refusal to investigate or take a stand on the events leading up to these allegedly anti-union dismissals.
3. 34. The Committee notes that the complainant organizations (in their last communication) and the Government agree that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security actively and decisively took part in the search for a settlement of the dispute, thus permitting the parties to reach an agreement. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government states that the parties agreed the dismissals were caused by an excess of manpower, and that it considered that it should not take a stand on the matter or investigate it, in so far as negotiations were held between the parties and led to an agreement, and it would have been inappropriate to disregard the will of the parties.
4. 35. The Committee observes that the agreement signed by the parties provides for the reinstatement of six trade union officials, the creation of a cooperative (with machinery given by the enterprise) with 26 of the dismissed workers, and monetary compensation for the rest of the dismissed workers.
5. 36. In these circumstances, since the parties concluded an agreement regarding the dismissals, which brought the dispute to an end, the Committee considers that this complaint does not call for further examination.