Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 364, Junio 2012

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

1. 29. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns non-compliance by a company with certain clauses in the collective agreement in force and its negotiation with another trade union of clauses affecting the complainant, at its meeting in June 2011. In its previous examinations of the case, the Committee noted that: (1) according to the statements of the Bogotá Telecommunications Enterprise (ETB), it had signed an agreement in 1997 with the National Association of Telephone and Communications Engineers (ATELCA) for the period 1997–2000; and (2) the agreement included specific guidelines on wage increases. The Committee considered that the extension to the members of ATELCA of the wage clauses of the 2006 agreement between the company and the primary union (SINTRATELEFONOS) was a matter of interpretation that should be settled in accordance with the rules and criteria laid down in national legislation. After receiving a communication dated 12 May 2010 in which ATELCA took issue with the Government’s reply, the Committee requested the Government to send its observations and state whether ATELCA had initiated legal proceedings.
2. 30. In a communication dated 2 February 2011, which was received on 23 June 2011, the Government indicates that it requested information from both the company and the Territorial Directorate of Cundinamarca. The company states that it has not violated the right of association or the right to freedom of association. The crux of the complaint is a dispute over the interpretation of a strictly wage-related clause, the violation of which would constitute a punishable act under national legislation. According to the company, the trade union is arguing for a biased interpretation of clause 19 of the collective agreement concluded on 26 May 2006 between the company and SINTRATELEFONOS, the primary trade union, which invokes the principle of equity to the detriment of the most disadvantaged workers. This collective agreement provides for a 3.5 per cent wage increase for the lowest-paid workers. The wage increase for workers who were members of ATELCA was implemented in accordance with the collective agreement concluded with the company for the period 1997–2000, given that ATELCA has not submitted a new list of demands to the company since 1997. The company underlines the fact that ATELCA has not initiated tutela proceedings as a means of challenging this situation, or brought the case before the judicial authorities, as it should have done, since there are specific procedures under domestic legislation for resolving such cases, either through administrative proceedings or in the courts.
3. 31. For its part, the Territorial Directorate of Cundinamarca, specifically its Coordinator of Inspection and Monitoring, sent a communication containing details of the administrative proceedings being brought against the company for its non-compliance with the collective agreement that was in force during the period 1997–2000. According to the Directorate, ATELCA lodged a complaint concerning violation of the fifth clause of the 1984 collective agreement. In its Order No. 060534 of 14 September 2006, the Directorate appointed the third labour inspectorate to carry out the relevant administrative investigation. In its Resolution No. 03281 of 14 February 2010, the Coordinator of Inspection and Monitoring reported that there was a legal and economic dispute between the company and ATELCA over the interpretation of the fifth clause of the collective agreement, which should be resolved by a labour court.
4. 32. While taking note of this information, the Committee invites the complainant to bring the matter before the courts in order to settle the dispute over the interpretation of clause 19 of the collective agreement. At the same time, given the time that has elapsed, the Committee suggests that the Government endeavour to bring the parties together to resolve this interpretative conflict. The Committee requests to be kept informed of any developments.