Informe provisional - Informe núm. 327, Marzo 2002

1. 368. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2001 meeting [see 324th Report, paras. 303-316]. The National Union of State Employees of Colombia (UTRADEC) sent new allegations in communications dated 18 July and 10 August 2001. The Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva (SINTRAOFICIALES) sent new allegations in a communication dated 9 May 2001; the Public Works Trade Union (SINTRAMINOBRAS) sent new allegations in a communication dated 5 February 2001; the Trade Union of Public Servants and Employees of the Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Land Development (SINALTRAHIMAT) sent new allegations in communications dated 5 February, 16 April, 24 May, 20 and 26 June, 9, 18 and 27 July, 10 August and 4 and 14 December 2001; the Public Servants and Employees’ Trade Union of Pitalito sent new allegations in a communication dated 1 June 2001 and the executive subcommittee of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT)-Huila Section sent new allegations in a communication dated 1 June 2001.
2. 369. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 23 January, 5 April, 4 September, 23 November 2001 and 9 January 2002.
3. 370. Colombia has ratified 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. 371. In its previous examination of the case at its March 2001 meeting, the Committee made the following conclusions and recommendations concerning the allegations still pending [see 324th Report, para. 316]:
   • (a) The Committee repeats its previous recommendation and requests the Government to take the necessary measures with regard to the competent authorities of the Municipality of Neiva to ensure that they pay compensation to all of the workers dismissed in violation of the collective agreement.
   • (b) Regarding the dismissal of the five trade union leaders of the INAT, the Committee hopes that, within the framework of the dialogue which has begun, the parties will arrive at an agreement in the near future that is satisfactory to both and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the result of the appeal before the Constitutional Court relating to the dismissal of the five trade union leaders.
   • (c) The Committee urges the Government to send its observations relating to the following allegations without delay: (1) the dismissal of members of the executive committee of SINTRADESAI; (2) the dismissal of Ms. Pamela Newball, leader of the Public Works Trade Union of the Municipality of Cúcuta; (3) the refusal of the Government to negotiate the claims of public servants; (4) the political persecution of Mr. Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, a lawyer, for the defence of trade union rights; and (5) the dismissal of two trade union leaders of SINTRAINPROMEN of the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare (Gladis Correa Ojeda and Marlen Ortiz), and ten trade union leaders of SINTREMAR of the Municipality of Arauca (Alfonso Moreno Vélez, Rigo Idilio Torres Yustre, Alvaro Moreno Moreno, Leomarín Roa Morles, Sabiniano Sosa, Zacarías Urrea Gutiérrez, Rafael David Figuera, Emiro Vasquez Baos, Roberto Alexi Rojas, Carlos Geovany Eulegelo).
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations concerning the 11?day detention of Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá, President of the Public Services Trade Union of the Tunjuelito Hospital, the proceedings launched against him and his suspension from duties.

B. New allegations

1. 372. In communications dated 18 July and 10 August, the National Union of State Employees of Colombia (UTRADEC) alleges that with regard to the dismissal of the members of the executive committee of SINTRADESAI, it is not aware of any measures taken by the Government to sanction this dismissal or any measures to guarantee the reinstatement of those dismissed. The complainant organization adds that, since the dismissal of the executive committee, the trade union organization on the island of San Andrés has practically collapsed.
2. 373. Regarding the Public Works Trade Union of Cúcuta, the complainant organization indicates that, following the massive dismissals of its members, only nine trade union officials remain. These officials were reinstated, although they are no longer in their original jobs, and proceedings to lift the trade union immunity of these employees have begun so that the municipal administration will be able to dismiss them once again.
3. 374. Regarding the dismissal of the two trade union leaders of SINTRAINPROMEN (Gladis Correa Ojeda and Marlén Ortiz), the complainant organization states that the Colombian Government has done little or nothing on this issue so that the Director of the JCBF may engage in dialogue with this trade union; on the contrary, the annihilation of this organization continues with irregular dismissals of its members, mostly women, and nothing has been resolved with regard to the reinstatement of the dismissed officials, violating the guarantee of trade union immunity.
4. 375. Regarding the dismissal of ten trade union leaders of SINTREMAR on 24 April 2001, the Labour Division of the High Court of the District of Cúcuta, upheld the decision of the court of first instance, which ordered the Municipality of Arauca to reinstate Carlos Emiro Vásquez Baos, Roberto Alexis Rojas Salas, Luis Alfonso Moreno Vélez, Rafael David Figuera Cisneros, Carlos Geovanny Eulegelo Mendivelso, Leomarín Roa, Zacarías Urrea and Sabiniano Sosa to jobs of a category equal to or better than those they held in this administrative body when they were dismissed and to pay them all the wages, benefits and other income to which they are entitled from the date of this ruling.
5. 376. The complainant organization states that regardless of the aforementioned, the employees have not, to date, been reinstated. Meanwhile, in extraordinary proceedings for protection of constitutional rights (tutela proceedings), the jurisdictional disciplinary chamber of the North Santander Council of the Judicature, on 6 July 2001 handed down a ruling that rendered null and void the ruling of 24 April 2001 of the Labour Division of the High Court of the District of Cúcuta in the special proceedings for reinstatement under trade union immunity. In reply to this, both SINTREMAR and UTRADEC, on 13 July 2001, contested the ruling with the office of Doctor Calixto Cortés Prieto, the trial judge. The latter is proof of how the Government of Colombia, through some agents in the legal sphere maintains impunity, violates freedom of association and mocks the rights of workers, and breaks the legal security of res judicata. The complainant organization adds that if the courts agree to lift trade union immunity, the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Arauca intends to dismiss Norberto Antonio Marín Bravo, legal adviser for SINTREMAR, whose job has been suppressed without reason or justification, with the sole objective of weakening the trade union organization.
6. 377. Regarding collective bargaining for public employees, the complainant organization states that the Colombian Government under Act No. 411 of 1997, approved the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and yet this has in no way helped to encourage collective bargaining or to promote the exercise of this right as, in spite of the efforts made by the subcommission on coordination of the public sector, wherein the text of a regulatory decree was agreed upon, the legal office of the President of the Republic has objected to it contrary to other government bodies who have agreed to it, such as the Ministry of Labour, the Treasury, the Ministry of National Planning and the administrative department of the Ministry of Public Administration.
7. 378. In a communication dated 9 March 2001, the Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva (SINTRAOFICIALES) states that, at the request of the Colombian Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the trade union and the Municipality of Neiva met on 5 April 2001 to find a solution to the case in question. On this occasion, the representative of the trade union requested the Mayor of Neiva to comply with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association and to reinstate the workers dismissed in 1993 by the Municipality of Neiva and, if this were not possible, that each of the workers be paid full compensation. According to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the State is obliged to comply with these recommendations in accordance with the rulings of August 1999 and September 2000. The chief of the legal office indicated that the administration of Neiva, following analysis and a detailed review, will proceed to establish its position with regard to the recommendations, believing it timely in the future to hold a subsequent meeting and reiterated its complete readiness to find solutions or alternatives that will allow the case to be successfully closed.
8. 379. For its part, the trade union undertook to send the Mayor a settlement proposal.
9. 380. This proposal, requested by the Mayor of Neiva, complies with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, ordering the reinstatement of the 134 workers dismissed and the payment of the salaries and benefits owing to them, with their respective conventional and/or lawful increases. The defendant in the labour proceedings was the Municipality of Neiva and not the Municipal Department of Public Works; and the Municipality as a territorial entity has not closed down or been liquidated and there are jobs there to be carried out by public employees. The department liquidated in 1993 was one of its administrative branch offices, which was replaced with the Municipal Institute of Civil Works (IMOC) and, more recently, with the Department of Infrastructure and Municipal Road Development (Decree No. 000469 of 30 December 1999 of the Mayor’s Office of Neiva). The wages and benefits to be paid to the workers who are reinstated should include the respective increases agreed upon. The Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva had agreed the following concessions: a wage increase of 30 per cent (agreement No. 24, clause 9), wage factors (agreement No. 16), holiday bonus (agreement No. 18), Christmas and June bonuses (agreement No. 20), transport subsidy (agreement No. 24), labour stability (agreement No. 24), monthly shortfall bonus (agreement No. 24), length of service bonus (agreement No. 24), bonus for more than 20 years of service (agreement No. 24) and retirement (agreement No. 12, clause 9) for those workers with 20 years’ service or more and, to this effect, taking into account the length of time they had been dismissed, 50 years of age or more at the date of the ruling on the action for protection of constitutional rights (tutela proceedings).
10. 381. In communications dated 5 February, 16 April, 24 May, 20 and 26 June, 9, 18 and 27 July, and 4 and 14 December, the Trade Union of Public Servants and Employees of the Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Land Development (SINALTRAHIMAT) states that on 9 February 2001, a meeting was held between the president of the trade union and the chief of the legal office to implement proceedings in order to resolve the issues contained in Case No. 1962, currently before the Committee on Freedom of Association. The president of the trade union stated that the enterprise should agree with the five trade union officials (Hernando Bonilla Buendía, Alberto Medina Medina, José Antonio Alarcón, Jesús Antonio Mejía Díaz and Alvaro Cabrera Achury) on their reinstatement with regard to their trade union immunity or the relevant compensation should they not be reinstated in accordance with the recommendations of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association. The head of the legal office indicated that, as indeed the Institute had reaffirmed, it has been complying with the judicial rulings with regard to the trade union officials mentioned as laid down by law but that in the interests of reaching an agreement with the former employees, the Institute believed it would be prudent to request these proceedings be suspended in order to present the board of directors of INAT with the proposals in order to find a solution to the conflict. The parties agreed to meet again on 21 February 2001.
11. 382. The complainant organization states that on 7 June 2001 and in reply to an official communication of 24 April 2001 sent to the Director-General of the Institute, in which he was requested to comply with the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, the head of the legal office of INAT indicated that the Institute had complied with the requirements of the legal rulings, explaining that none of these had ordered reinstatement and pointing out that having paid the compensation for retirement from service and the other costs laid down in the ruling, that INAT considered the case judicially closed. If the legal authorities considered that the unilateral decision to terminate the contracts of the public employees of INAT, Regional Office No. 7, was not illegal, given that the reason for this can be found in the Constitution and in the law, i.e. provisional article 20, Decree No. 2135 of 1992 and Decree No. 1616 of 1993, respectively, and rejected the claims for reintegration, it would be inappropriate and inconvenient for the administration to compensate its former employees again as this would imply further expenditure for the public treasury. This conclusion was supported by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
12. 383. In a communication dated 1 June 2001, the Public Servants and Employees’ Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila states that its case is similar to that of Neiva. The dismissal of all the employees of Pitalito and members of the trade union organization of the municipality was so unjust and unusual that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security of Huila itself in resolutions Nos. 043 of 15 September 1994 and 001 of 8 March 1995, fined the Municipality of Pitalito the sum of US$493,500 for having violated the collective labour agreement in force.
13. 384. Moreover, the right of workers to be relocated in another public department was violated since agreement No. 008 of the Municipal Council of Pitalito and Decree No. 066 of 1993 of the Mayor’s Office ordered the suppression and liquidation of the Municipal Department of Public Works, where the workers were employed, and at the same time ordered the establishment of the Municipal Institute of Works, the Department of Works and the Institute of Works which, although formally separate, were functionally the same and the Institute replaced the Department as follows: (1) in the same act, the Department of Works was dissolved and the Institute of Works was created (agreement No. 008/93, article 1); (2) the functions of the Department of Works are substantially the same as the Institute of Works; (3) the machinery belonging to the Department of Works passed to the Institute of Works (agreement No. 008/93, article 4); (4) the goods and chattels of the Department of Works passed to the Institute of Works (agreement No. 008/93, article 4 and Decree No. 066 of 1993, article 4); (5) the only thing that did not pass from the Department of Public Works to the Institute of Public Works was the workers, as on 17 September 1993 they were dismissed by the Municipality of Pitalito.
14. 385. In a communication dated 1 June 2001, the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) indicate that, to date, neither the State nor the Municipality of Neiva has wanted to comply with the recommendations of the ILO. There has been no political will in spite of the fact that, as has already been mentioned, the Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva proceeded to lodge an action for protection of constitutional rights (tutela proceedings), taking as its legal basis the recommendation of November 1999 and ruling T-568 of 10 August 1999 of the Constitutional Court, in which it was established that the recommendations of the Governing Body, as the international controlling body, were obligatory for the State of Colombia. This was subsequently ignored by other judicial bodies of the country. In reality, the courts issued the interpretation that was the most unfavourable for the workers, disregarding the Political Constitution, constitutional jurisprudence and the internal processing of the complaints before the Committee on Freedom of Association in order to say that only those rulings of the International Court of Justice were obligatory.
15. 386. The complainant states that it has tried to find rapprochement in various different ways but in vain. On 5 April 2001, there was a meeting at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security with the Mayor’s Office of Neiva. As a result of this meeting, the complainant organization provided the Mayor’s Office of Neiva with a proposal for settlement, and this proposal has received no reply.

C. The Government's reply

1. 387. In communications dated 23 January, 5 April, 4 September and 23 November 2001, the Government states that with regard to the proceedings initiated against the Municipality of Arauca, the Labour Court of Arauca ruled in favour of Alfonso Moreno Vélez, Emiro Vasquez, Rafael David Figuera, Roberto Alexis Rojas, Carlos Geovanny Eulegelo, Sabiniano Sosa, Zacarías Urrea and Leomarin Roa Morales, and this ruling was ratified by the High Court of Cucúta. With regard to the proceedings of Rigo Idilio Torres and Alvaro Moreno, these are awaiting rulings in the court of second instance. The Government adds that the Arauca Territorial Office for Labour and Social Security issued resolution No. 006 of 24 March 2000 in which it fined the Mayor’s Office of Arauca the sum of 50 valid legal minimum wages for blatant violation of the collective labour agreement in force in ignoring the procedure laid down in the agreement for the dismissal of workers, given that it disregarded the proposals presented by SINTREMAR and, in this way, prevented the trade union from playing a part in the procedure of the dismissal of the workers. In its communication of 9 January 2002, the Government acknowledges the reconciliation meetings held between the Municipality and SINTREMAR, from which it can be gathered that the situation has not changed.
2. 388. The proceedings begun by Gladis Correa Ojeda are in the preliminary stages and, in the proceedings of Marlen Ortiz, Circuit Labour Court 20 of Santa Fe de Bogotá issued a ruling ordering the children’s home, Los Ositos, to reinstate her and to pay the wages and benefits owing to her since her dismissal up until the date of her reintegration and, as a second point, acquitted the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare, a ruling which will be duly executed so long as there is no appeal.
3. 389. Regarding the dismissal of trade union members and officials of SINALTRAHIMAT, the Government states that the ruling issued on 22 October 1999 by the Civil, Family and Labour Court of the District High Court of Neiva in the ordinary labour proceedings begun by Hernando Bonilla Buendía and Jesús Antonio Mejía Díaz ordered the National Institute of Land Development (INAT) to pay these former employees compensation for the suppression of their jobs, taking inflation into account, and a fine if it does not immediately comply and, with regard to José Antonio Alarcón, to pay him a pension. These payments were duly carried out. In spite of the fact that the ordinary proceedings begun by the former workers stated their status as trade union officials, claiming reinstatement to the jobs that they held before they were dismissed from the enterprise and compensation for disregard for their trade union immunity, the legal authorities, with regard to the reinstatement, considered that the unilateral decision to terminate the employment contracts of the public employees of INAT, Regional Office No. 7, Nieva, was not illegal as it was based on the Constitution and the law, provisional article 20, Decree No. 2135 of 1992 and Decree No. 1616 of 1993, respectively, and as such complied with the law that ordered the restructuring of the Institute and the ruling did not admit the claims for reinstatement but ordered the payment of the fines indicated. Now that INAT has complied with these rulings, it cannot order the reinstatements prescribed by a foreign competent authority as such behaviour, reversing a legal ruling, would incur criminal sanctions. The Government states that INAT was not ordered to reinstate the trade union officials dismissed but that faced with the physical and legal impossibility of reinstating the dismissed workers it was ordered to pay them compensation, which it so did.
4. 390. Through a number of communications and in meetings held at the Ministry of Labour, INAT has indicated to the complainant organizations that reinstatement is not possible as the legal rulings did not order this.
5. 391. The Government states that the Committee’s recommendation did not make reinstatement compulsory for the Institute. Official communication No. 002447 of 7 June 2001 sent to Hernando Bonilla Buendía and the other signatories, states the position of INAT in the face of the repeated requests of the former trade union officials and indicates that to compensate its former workers again would lead to further outlay by the public treasury as well as being inappropriate and inconvenient for the administration, given that it could incur criminal procedures.
6. 392. The Government states that it requested the coordinator of the human resources group to provide information with regard to vacant positions in Regional Office No. 7, Neiva-Huila; in memorandum No. 132 of 20 February 2001, the coordinator of the human resources group stated that there were no vacant positions in Regional Office No. 7. Based on this information, INAT has dealt in an appropriate way with the requirements of the trade union officials, doing everything possible to find a definitive solution to the situation of the former workers and stating that at no time has it disregarded the recommendations of the ILO and that it has carried out all possible reconciliation at the request of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
7. 393. The Government states that in accordance with the ruling issued by the Consultation and Civil Service Department of the Council of State on 12 October 2000, referring to the legal rulings ordering reinstatement to non-existent positions owing to the closing of the branch of the state entity, the administration recognizes the importance of compensation in the form of wages and benefits owing as this reimburses the damage caused by the act declared invalid to the plaintiff. Non-reinstatement is offset by the compensation that, in accordance with article 148 of Decree No. 2171 of 1992 was paid by the entity to the former worker because of suppression of his/her job.
8. 394. With regard to workers dismissed at the Municipality of Neiva in violation of the collective labour agreement, the Government states that the legal security of Colombia and its associates would be fragmented if the rulings of its courts were not respected. In view of the above and of the universally recognized three-way division of public powers of the State and of the popular election of mayors and governors, the Government cannot force the Municipality of Neiva to disregard legal rulings and to order the reinstatement and/or payment of compensation that was not requested in the claims. However, it officially requested the Mayor’s Office of Neiva to provide a detailed and specific report on the cancellation of compensation for the workers dismissed from this municipality. The head of the legal office of the Mayor’s Office of Neiva, in an official communication dated 20 September 2000, stated that the Municipality had retired six employees for being unfit to work, four of them from 1 February 1993 and two from 1992; it had granted retirement pensions to 27 workers between 1992 and 1997; it had paid the fine for late compliance ordered by the High Court of Neiva to 21 workers, amounting to US$210,358,038. Moreover, it had investigated the position taken by the Municipality of Neiva, and offered as the one and only remaining possibility to give priority to the employment of dismissed workers in jobs that would be created in the future. The Colombian Government has systematically held reconciliation meetings between the Municipality of Neiva and the workers dismissed as a result of the restructuring brought about by resolution No. 016 of 1993. The most recent meeting took place on 5 April 2001 and once again the Municipality of Neiva offered to review conscientiously the cases presented to it without implying that the decision taken in 1993 was mistaken or that the Municipality of Neiva would disregard the rulings of the Colombian courts, which, as was said earlier, were favourable for it.
9. 395. Regarding the dismissal of the trade union officials of SINTRADESAI, the Government states that the support group for complaints to and interventions by the ILO, in Official communication No. 026904 of 14 August 2001, requested information with regard to the status of the administrative labour inquiry begun against the Governor’s Office of San Andrés, Providencia and Santa Catalina and that it will send its observations on the outcome of the inquiry shortly.
10. 396. Regarding the political persecution of Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, the Government states that this does not fall into the competency of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and that there are other forums that investigate situations of this kind, i.e. the Superior Council of the Judicature, which is charged with overseeing proceedings relating to litigating lawyers in this country, or the Attorney-General’s Office.
11. 397. Regarding the case of Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá, the District Attorney’s Office 195, Unit III for criminal offences against public authorities and the law, is cognizant of this case and reports that there are proceedings against this person for a combination of offences involving extortion and ideological deception in a public document. In a resolution of 7 December 2000, his legal situation was resolved by securing preventive detention without the right to parole and requesting his suspension from duties from the Health Department. In a resolution of 5 January 2001, house arrest was substituted for preventive detention with a security of a fine of two minimum wages and a signed undertaking. He was also prohibited from leaving the country. In accordance with a resolution of 9 May 2001, the decision to charge was made and the preliminary procedures are under way. Once the respective procedures have been completed, it will be sent to the Circuit Criminal Court to begin the trial stage. In accordance with the above, the Tunjuelito Hospital, complying with the District Attorney’s Office, issued resolution No. 039 dated 31 December 2000 in which it suspended Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá from his duties.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 398. The Committee observes that when it last examined this case at its March 2001 meeting, it requested the Government: (1) to take the necessary measures to ensure that to the competent authorities of the Municipality of Neiva pay compensation to all of the workers dismissed in violation of the collective agreement; (2) to keep it informed of developments regarding efforts made as part, of the dialogue that had begun so that the parties conclude an agreement concerning to the dismissal of the five trade union leaders of INAT; (3) to send its observations without delay as regards the dismissal of the members of the executive committee of SINTRADESAI, the dismissal of Pamela Newball, leader of the Public Works Trade Union of the Municipality of Cúcuta, the Government’s refusal to negotiate the claims of public servants, the political persecution of Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, a lawyer for the trade union, and the dismissal of two trade union leaders of SINTRAPROINMEN of the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare and ten trade union leaders of SINTREMAR of the municipality of Arauca; and (4) to provide its observations concerning the 11-day detention of Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá, President of the Public Services Trade Union of the Tunjuelito Hospital.
2. 399. Regarding the dismissal of workers at the Municipality of Neiva in violation of the collective agreement, the Committee notes that the Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva (SINTRAOFICIALES) states that at the request of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security a reconciliation meeting was held between the trade union and representatives of the Municipality on 5 April 2001. The Committee notes that on this occasion the complainant organization repeated its request for reinstatement of those workers dismissed or, if this were not possible, that they be compensated fully; the head of the legal office stated that the office would proceed to establish its position in the light of the recommendations and that it would be necessary to arrange a new meeting, which has still not taken place. The Committee also notes the allegations of the executive subcommittee of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT)-Huila Section with regard to the workers of the Municipality of Neiva, according to which and in spite of the efforts made to find a solution, there have been no positive results. As a result of the meeting with the Mayor of Neiva, CUT presented a settlement proposal to which it has still had no reply.
3. 400. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the legal rulings must be respected and that the Government cannot force the Municipality of Neiva to disregard the legal rulings and order reinstatement and/or payment of compensation. The Government indicates that the only prospect would be to give those workers dismissed preference when employing people for jobs that will be created in the future. To this end the Government has carried out reconciliation meetings between the trade unions representing those who have been dismissed and the Municipality of Neiva. The Committee repeats the observations made when it last examined this case and stresses that "such an argument cannot be used to undermine the principles of freedom of association and that any necessary legislative amendments should be made to ensure these principles are respected" [see 324th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, para. 312]. In these circumstances, the Committee reiterates once again its previous recommendation to the Government and requests it to take steps to ensure that the competent authorities of the Municipality of Neiva pay compensation to all of the workers dismissed in violation of the collective agreement. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the reconciliation meetings held to this effect.
4. 401. Regarding the dismissal of the five trade union leaders of INAT, the Trade Union of Public Servants and Employees of the Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Land Development (SINALTRAHIMAT) states that on 9 February 2001 a meeting between the complainant organization and a representative of INAT was held. On this occasion, according to the documentary attestation of the act sent by the complainant organization, the head of the legal office of INAT indicated that the Institute had complied with the legal rulings but would try to come to a reconciliation with the former employees. The complainant organization states that in spite of this, on 7 June 2001, the head of the legal office sent a communication (attached) in which they were informed that the Institute had complied with the legal rulings and that none of these called for reinstatement. The communication stated that once the compensation for retirement from service and other costs ordered in the rulings had been paid, INAT would consider the case closed.
5. 402. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that on 22 October 1999 the ordinary labour courts ordered compensation for suppression of jobs, taking inflation into account, and a fine if this was not paid immediately. With regard to the request for reinstatement, the Government states that the legal authorities considered that the unilateral decision taken to terminate the labour contracts was not illegal and as such complied with the law ordering restructuring of the Institute; they did not admit the claims for reinstatement and ordered only the payment of the fines indicated. The Government states that INAT has indicated in a number of communications that reinstatement is impossible as this was not part of the legal rulings. It adds that even though it has tried to employ these workers in available positions in the Municipality of Neiva, the coordinator of the human resources group stated that these positions were still not available. In spite of the efforts undertaken by the Government, INAT considers the case legally closed now that the compensation ordered by the rulings had been paid. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take steps to find the trade union leaders employment opportunities as soon as possible in positions that become available in the future.
6. 403. The Committee notes the allegations of the National Union of State Employees of Colombia (UTRADEC) with regard to the dismissal of the members of the executive committee of SINTRADESAI, according to which the Government has taken no steps to reinstate these employees, which has practically caused the disappearance of the trade union on the island of San Andrés. The complainant organization adds that following a mass dismissal, only a few of the members of the Public Works Trade Union of Cúcuta, remain and that proceedings to lift the trade union immunity have begun so that the trade union leaders can be dismissed.
7. 404. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the support group for complaints to and interventions by the ILO requested information with regard to the status of the administrative labour inquiry begun against the Governor’s Office of San Andrés and that it will send its observations on the outcome of this shortly. The Committee recalls “the importance it attaches to such proceedings being concluded expeditiously, as justice delayed is justice denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 104]. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to take steps to complete the administrative labour inquiry into the Governor’s Office of San Andrés as soon as possible and to keep it informed of developments. Regarding the mass dismissal and the lifting of trade union immunity of officials belonging to the Public Employees’ Trade Union of Cúcuta, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations without delay.
8. 405. Regarding the dismissal of two trade union leaders of SINTRAINPROMEN (Gladis Correa Ojeda and Marlen Ortiz), the Committee notes the information provided by UTRADEC that the Government has taken no steps to hold discussions with the trade union. On the contrary, it states that trade union members continue to be dismissed in an unacceptable way, in violation of the guarantee of trade union immunity. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the proceedings for Gladis Correa Ojeda are in the preliminary stages and that those for Marlen Ortiz have ordered the children’s home, Los Ositos, to reinstate her and pay her the wages and benefits owing to her. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the proceedings relating to the dismissal of trade union official Gladis Correa Ojeda.
9. 406. Regarding the dismissal of ten trade union leaders of SINTREMAR, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Arauca Labour Court ruled in favour of Alfonso Moreno Vélez, Emiro Vásquez, Rafael Davi Figuera, Robert Alexi Rojas, Carlos Geovanny Eulegelo, Sabiniano Sosa, Zacarías Urrea and Leomarín Roa Morales, and that this ruling is final. Furthermore, the Arauca Territorial Office for Labour and Social Security fined the Municipality of Arauca the sum of 50 valid legal minimum wages for violation of the collective labour agreement in force in ignoring the procedure laid down for the dismissal of employees and lack of consultation over the proposals presented by SINTREMAR. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the situation, given that the complainant organizations have highlighted new proceedings against the reinstatements. Regarding the proceedings for dismissal of Rigo Idilio Torres and Alvaro Moreno, the Government states that these are awaiting a decision in the court of second instance. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings.
10. 407. The Committee notes the allegations of UTRADEC that the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Arauca is trying to dismiss Norberto Antonio Marín Bravo, legal adviser for SINTREMAR, whose job has been suppressed for no reason, and requests the Government to keep it informed of the situation.
11. 408. Regarding the political persecution of Fermín Vargas Buenaventura, a lawyer for the trade union, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that cases of this type do not fall within the competency of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and that there are other authorities qualified to examine these. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the proceedings lodged with it are always directed against governments and not against a specific ministry or office. Therefore, the fact that the Ministry of Labour may not be competent to investigate the allegations does not excuse the Government from having to provide a detailed reply. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take steps without delay to see that the relevant state body begins an inquiry into the allegations and to keep it informed of developments.
12. 409. Regarding the dismissal and proceedings against Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the District Attorney’s Office has informed it that this former employee is being tried for a combination of offences involving extortion and ideological deception in a public document and that currently the proceedings are with the criminal court to begin trial. Therefore, the Tunjuelito Hospital suspended Juan Bautista Oyola Palomá from his duties. The Committee hopes that proceedings will be concluded in the near future and, should Mr. Oyola Palomá be judged innocent, that he is reinstated in his job and with his trade union office without delay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
13. 410. The Committee notes the new allegations presented by the Public Servants and Employees’ Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila, according to which the Municipality of Pitalito proceeded to dismiss all the workers and members of the trade union. The complainant organization indicates that the Ministry of Labour fined the Municipality for violation of the collective labour agreement in force. The complainant organization also believes that the right of workers to be relocated in another public department was violated as the same decree ordering the suppression of the Municipal Department of Public Works created the Municipal Institute of Public Works. The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to these allegations nor has it replied to: (a) the dismissal of Pamela Newball, leader of the Public Works Trade Union of the Municipality of Cúcuta, and the start of proceedings to lift the trade union immunity of nine trade union officials; and (b) the refusal of the Government to negotiate the claims of public servants. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on these issues without delay.