Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 355, Noviembre 2009

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

1. 94. The Committee last examined the substance of this case at its November 2008 meeting and, on that occasion, asked the Government to keep it informed regarding the case against three former representatives of the enterprise Golán SA concerning non-compliance with judicial reinstatement orders. The Committee observes that, independently of this process, there is an obligation on the part of the company to reinstate the dismissed workers in order to comply with repeated judicial orders [see 351st Report, paras 861–872].
2. 95. In a communication dated 10 March 2009, the Government states that, on 10 February 2009, the International Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security asked the Justice of the Peace of the municipality of Villa Canales for information on the status of the case. The following day, the honourable judge stated that one of the defendants, Mr Marco Antonio Ramos Pontaza, had been acquitted. The other individuals who disregarded reinstatement orders and failed to reinstate workers, no longer work for the enterprise Golán SA, and it has not been possible to locate them. Proceedings against them are ongoing. According to the Government, in the interest of an objective analysis, the Committee should take into consideration the fact that the competent judicial authority stated on 10 February 2009 that the workers who lodged the complaint have not issued a statement or appeared before that court. The Government states that it is clear from studying the case that the workers (former workers) are no longer interested in continuing with the action, possibly because they are working for themselves or for another enterprise, and given also that the events that gave rise to the complaint occurred more than eight years ago.
3. 96. Taking into account the information provided by the judicial authority, it can be inferred that the State of Guatemala, through the judiciary, offered its full support for the continuation of the case but the complainants themselves ceased to follow it up, either through negligence, lack of interest or for reasons beyond the State’s control.
4. 97. The Committee takes note of this information. In this regard, the Committee understands that, in the case against former representatives of the enterprise Golán SA concerning non-compliance with reinstatement orders, the former workers were not interested in pursuing the case and regrets the eight-year delay, recalling that justice delayed is justice denied. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which it intends to give effect to the application of the repeated judicial reinstatement orders.