Informe provisional - Informe núm. 319, Noviembre 1999

1. 157. The Committee examined this case at its March 1999 meeting and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body (see the Committee's 314th Report, paras. 97 to 113, approved by the Governing Body at its 274th Session in March 1999).
2. 158. Subsequently, the Government sent new observations in communications dated 12 August and 3 September 1999. In a recent communication dated 2 October 1999, the complainant presented new allegations and information.
3. 159. 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. 160. At the Committee's March 1999 meeting, when it examined the present case, a number of allegations of anti-union interference and discrimination, and of failure by CONALVIDRIOS S.A. to comply with clauses in the relevant collective agreement, remained pending. Specifically, the complainant had alleged the following (see 314th Report, paras. 100 to 102):
2. -- after hiring a former official of the Ministry of Labour (Regional Director of Labour and Social Security of Cundinamarca) as Human Resources Director on 4 September 1994, the CONALVIDRIOS enterprise embarked on an anti-union policy, failing to recognize the participation of the union in the joint committees (on labour relations, occupational health, sports and catering) established in the collective agreement; the Ministry of Labour was informed accordingly;
3. -- the enterprise has embarked on an anti-union policy of reducing the union's membership, granting those who resign from the union privileges such as loans, promotions and bonuses, which is further aggravated by the fact that some of these, such as leave and housing loans, are statutory benefits for which provision is made in the collective agreement; as a result of this policy, approximately 200 members have resigned from the union; the intention is to turn the trade union into a minority organization, which under Colombian law would result in the loss of substantial guarantees, especially in terms of power to represent the workers vis-à-vis the employer; the Ministry of Labour was informed accordingly;
4. -- the Ministry of Labour issued Decisions Nos. 0072 and 0073 of 18 January 1995 revoking previous administrative decisions registering the executive committees of the trade union. The revocation of these decisions was inappropriate and the representatives of the trade union had not been duly notified of it. Once these administrative decisions had been issued, the CONALVIDRIOS S.A. enterprise proceeded to dismiss six trade union officers, followed by 14 other trade union leaders. The person who instigated these dismissals and the above-mentioned decisions was the enterprise's Human Resources Director (a former official of the Ministry of Labour), who used all the powers vested in him, while the Ministry of Labour failed to deal impartially with the complaints concerning these matters;
5. -- the enterprise stopped granting trade union leave for which provision had been made in the collective agreement;
6. -- when the trade union convenes assemblies, the enterprise invents games, parties, sports and other activities, and members who speak at a meeting are dismissed the next day; members live in constant fear of losing their jobs; human rights are clearly being violated; trade union officers cannot speak to their fellow workers, and if they do they are transferred to another workstation or shift; the authorities and the Colombian judiciary have done nothing about this;
7. -- the enterprise confiscates from the workers bulletins distributed by the trade union, thus infringing freedom of expression; on one occasion when trade union officers came to the entrance of the enterprise in order to distribute the information bulletin, the security guards set the dogs on them, threatening their lives;
8. -- the enterprise brought criminal charges against the chairperson and the secretary of the national executive of the trade union for libel and slander but was unable to prove its accusations. To date, the union has brought over 100 legal actions (lawsuits, ordinary claims and special claims for trade union immunity and a criminal suit, which is currently being investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office No. 68 of Santafé de Bogotá). According to the complainant, the labour courts and the labour administration authorities have been informed of all these facts, without any appropriate action being taken by the Ministry of Labour;
9. -- the enterprise also brought criminal charges against seven officers of the Soacha local executive committee of the trade union for alleged procedural fraud, false impersonation and falsifying documents. The trade union brought criminal charges against four managers of the enterprise for trade union persecution (section 272 of the Penal Code);
10. -- finally, the complainant attaches a copy of a judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice dated 21 January 1997, in which it is acknowledged that the CONALVIDRIOS S.A. enterprise exerted pressure on the workers in order to obtain their withdrawal from the trade union and ordered the enterprise "to refrain in future from acts aimed at preparing or processing withdrawal of trade union membership or any conduct aimed at obtaining the withdrawal of workers from membership of the enterprise trade union".
11. 161. The Committee takes note of the Government's statements to the effect that the complainant had not brought any of these allegations to the attention of the authorities and that there were administrative and legal measures available in cases of violation of the law, including provisions requiring the reinstatement of workers dismissed in violation of trade union law. The Government explains that the fact that an administrator at the undertaking in question subsequently obtained a post at the Ministry of Labour is not illegal or objectionable, although once it was informed of the allegations it brought them to the attention of the competent authority. The Government also indicated that the human rights aspects of the complaint will be investigated by the Inter-Institutional Human Rights Office of the Ministry of Labour (see 314th Report, para. 111).
12. 162. The Committee made the following recommendation (see 314th Report, para. 113):
13. The Committee regrets that the Government has merely sent general information on the allegations presented, despite their gravity, and requests the Government to ensure that a detailed investigation is carried out into each of the allegations presented by the complainant and to inform it in this respect without delay.
14. B. The Government's reply
15. 163. In its communication of 12 August 1999, the Government reiterates what it had already said in its observations of 15 January 1999, since no complaint concerning the specific allegations made by SINTRAVIDRICOL had been lodged with the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The information supplied is not of a general nature but is very grave and not consistent with the information available to the Government. Since SINTRAVIDRICOL has still not communicated to the Government the information which it has presented to the Committee, the Government has ordered that an inquiry be carried out and indicated that, with regard to the dismissals, owing to the division of powers, the allegations should be brought to the attention of the labour courts, just as any criminal allegations must be brought to the attention of the prosecution service and the criminal courts.
16. 164. In its communication of 3 September 1999, the Government reiterates that, as it had maintained in its observations of 15 January, the Government had ordered an investigation into the allegations presented to the ILO, since the Ministry of Labour had not been notified of them. The Government refers to the report submitted on 9 August 1999 by the Head of the Inspection and Monitoring Division of the Bogotá and Cundinamarca Regional Labour Department, according to which, "On 6 July 1999 a report was sent to the Technical Directorate of Labour stating that the application made by SINTRAVIDRICOL to the ILO's Committee on Freedom of Association has been closed at the request of Mr. Argelio Vargas Rodríguez, the union's legal representative". The Government considers that, in view of the fact that the complainant has withdrawn the complaint, the Committee should regard the case as closed.
17. C. New information and allegations from the complainant
18. 165. In its communication dated 2 October 1999 the complainant presents new allegations. It also states that it is withdrawing its complaint only with regard to aspects relating to economic benefits and trade union membership dues.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 166. The Committee notes that the complainant denies that it has withdrawn its complaint in its entirety and that it has done so only with regard to the matter of economic benefits and trade union membership dues.
2. 167. Under these circumstances, noting that the authorities have closed the investigation in the present case on the basis of erroneous information to the effect that the complainant had withdrawn its complaint in its entirety, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to ensure that a thorough investigation is carried out into each of the allegations presented by the complainant (except for those concerning economic benefits and trade union membership dues) and to inform it in this respect without delay.
3. 168. The Committee also requests the Government to send its observations on the recent new allegations contained in the complainant's communication of 2 October 1999.