Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 346, Junio 2007

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

1. 67. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations of anti-union discrimination by the Bridgestone Tyre Indonesia Company against four trade union officers suspended without pay, at its November 2006 meeting. On that occasion, the Committee noted with concern that four years had elapsed since the complaint of anti-union discrimination was first made, without any reported progress on these proceedings and once again urged the Government to ensure that the proceedings for the examination of allegations of anti-union discrimination against the four trade union officers be completed without further delay and in a fully impartial manner, regardless of the fact that the former director-president has since left the country. The Committee also recalled that it had previously noted with regret that the anti-union discrimination and the dismissal proceedings concerning the four trade union officers had gone ahead simultaneously, and requested the Government to inform it of the decision of the Supreme Court with respect to the appeal made by these trade union officers on the decision of the National Administrative High Court, as well as to transmit all relevant texts and confirm that no decision in favour of dismissal would be enforced prior to the resolution of the question of anti-union discrimination. If the allegations relating to anti-union discrimination were found to be true, but the trade union officers had already received formal notification of their dismissals, the Committee once again urged the Government to ensure, in cooperation with the employer concerned, that the trade union officers are reinstated or, if reinstatement would not be possible, that they are paid adequate compensation such as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, taking into account the damage caused and the need to avoid the repetition of such acts in the future. Finally the Committee, recalling the complainant’s allegation that the company had refused to negotiate with the union’s executive committee, once again requested the Government to encourage negotiations, with a view to the conclusion of a collective agreement [see 343rd Report, paras 96–100].
2. 68. In a communication of 9 March 2007, the Government indicates, with respect to the anti-union discrimination proceedings involving the four trade union officers, that it continues to face difficulty in presenting the former director-president of the company before the court, as he is a foreign citizen who has left the country. In spite of the efforts taken, including the submission of the case to the international police (INTERPOL), no progress with respect to this matter has been made.
3. 69. As concerns the encouragement of negotiations, the Government states that in 2004 the Central Committee for the Settlement of Labour Disputes issued a decision to replace the union’s old bargaining team for the purpose of negotiating a collective agreement, and that a new bargaining team had participated in 2004 and 2006 collective labour agreement negotiations. A copy of the new collective labour agreement would be communicated to the Committee separately.
4. 70. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government once again confines itself to stating that no progress with respect to the four trade union officers’ anti-union discrimination proceedings has been made, due to difficulties in presenting the departed former director-president of the company before the court, and otherwise provides no information respecting the legal proceedings concerning the concerned parties. Noting with deep concern that over four years have now elapsed since the complaint of anti-union discrimination was first made, and in light of the apparent impasse in these proceedings due to the absence of the former director-president, the Committee requests the Government to institute an independent investigation at the enterprise and with the workers concerned to determine whether they have been the subject of anti-union discrimination and, if the allegations are found to be true, but the trade union officers had already received formal notification of their dismissals, to ensure, in cooperation with the employer concerned, that the trade union officers are reinstated or, if reinstatement is not possible, that they are paid adequate compensation such as to constitute sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, taking into account the damage caused and the need to avoid the repetition of such acts in the future. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this regard. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to inform it of the decision of the Supreme Court with respect to the appeal made by these trade union officers on the decision of the National Administrative High Court, as well as to transmit all relevant texts.
5. 71. Noting the Government’s indication that a collective labour agreement has been entered into between a new bargaining team and the company, the Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the agreement without delay, as well as a copy of the decision of the Central Committee for the Settlement of Labour Disputes which apparently replaced the union’s old bargaining team.