Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 330, Marzo 2003

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 80. At its June 2002 meeting, the Committee formulated the following recommendations on the pending allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination at El Salvador International Airport as part of staff reduction measures [see 328th Report, para. 251]:
   • – the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures urgently to ensure that an investigation is carried out to determine the reasons why such a high proportion of unionists and workers’ representatives were dismissed and, if it transpires that any of these dismissals were due to trade union membership or legitimate union activities, that it takes the necessary measures to ensure the reinstatement of those workers in their jobs, without loss of pay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard as a matter of urgency;
   • The Committee had observed that the Government had not denied that over half of the workers dismissed were members of SITINPEP, and that 24 of them were workers’ representatives in various commissions and committees [see 328th Report, para. 247].
   • – as concerns the allegation of the militarization of El Salvador International Airport on 24 and 25 September 2001, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to carry out an investigation to determine the reasons for this militarization and the extent to which it interfered with trade union activities and to keep it informed urgently of the outcome of this investigation.
2. 81. In its communication of 30 August 2002, the Workers’ Union of the National Institute for Public Employees’ Pensions (SITINPEP) indicates that the dismissals from the INPEP had anti-union purposes and affected 55 union members (namely 42.5 per cent of the total number of members), 28 of whom were officials in trade union structures.
3. 82. In its communication of 13 September 2002, the Federation of Public Service Workers’ Trade Unions of El Salvador (FESTRASPES) states that as regards the partial agreement of 26 February 2002 between the Autonomous Port Executive Commission (CEPA) and SITEAIES, the latter decided to halt its judicial and administrative proceedings in El Salvador since it considered that the country’s institutions do not function properly, but said Federation has not withdrawn its complaint before the ILO given that these agreements must be overseen and improved until all of the airport workers obtain the employment benefits and conditions they enjoyed prior to militarization. The FESTRASPES alleges that more workers have renounced their trade union membership under pressure from the management following the 26 February 2002 agreement. The FESTRASPES sent a report from the Prosecutor’s Office for the Defence of Human Rights of El Salvador which indicates the following [it is not known whether the following is a statement by the Prosecutor’s Office or the trade union official’s version]:
   • Following an inspection at the site, it has come to light that the El Salvador International Airport authorities prevented a General Assembly from taking place within the establishment at SITEAIES headquarters on 12 October 2002. Military police reserves were positioned in the area surrounding the terminal to prevent this meeting from taking place. When questioned, they said they had been given orders by the airport’s security chief to prevent suspended workers from entering the building and “to prevent the Assembly from taking place on these premises”. For this reason members of the Assembly met on rented premises in order to hold the aforementioned Assembly and elect new trade union officials.
4. 83. In its communications of 8, 28 October and 10 December 2002, the Government sent a copy of the agreement signed by the Port Executive Commission and 64 workers (whose contracts were suspended) terminating their individual employment contracts and establishing the specific amounts that they would receive. At the same time, the trade union SITEAIES decided to renounce any claims made before an institution, including the complaint made before the ILO (the same person who made the complaint to the ILO signed the agreement). The Government adds that no act of militarization occurred at the airport and that trade union rights were not obstructed. This case related to the suspension of individual employment contracts owing to force majeure as outlined in the Labour Code. The Government states that the administration had informed staff and the Union on many occasions of the financial situation of the INPEP which would lead to staff reductions. It also discussed the actual status of the institution’s finances and the imminent staff reductions with the trade union’s officials. Both unionized and non-unionized workers were amongst the staff whose posts were frozen. The jobs belonging to members of the executive board of the trade union and its former officials were respected; some officials with trade union immunity had their jobs frozen because they had failed to inform the institution of their trade union confederation membership, but had accepted their redundancy with the condition that their salaries be paid for the period during which they had been covered by trade union immunity; this condition was met. The redundancies were not motivated by trade union membership or trade union activities; affiliated and non?affiliated staff are currently working at the institution.
5. 84. The Committee observes that, unlike SITEAIES, the complainant organizations SITINPEP and FESTRASPES have not withdrawn their complaints. The Committee notes that 64 workers, SITEAIES and the institution CEPA reached an agreement. The Committee observes that the versions provided by the complainant organizations and the Government concerning the anti-union nature of the termination of contracts at the airport differ, as do their versions of the militarization of the airport in October 2001 and the alleged obstruction of the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee recalls that, generally speaking, the right of organizations to hold meetings and demonstrations must be guaranteed and that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government, SITINPEP and FESTRASPES jointly to examine the situation of other members of these organizations (not the 64 members already mentioned) who allege that they have been prejudiced for trade union reasons, with a view to their reinstatement in their jobs or the payment of compensation.