Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 367, Marzo 2013

1. 1295. The Committee examined this case at its June 2012 meeting and presented an interim report [see 364th Report of the Committee, paras 1086–1124, approved by the Governing Body at its 315th Session (June 2012)].
2. 1296. The Government sent new observations in a communication dated 10 October 2012.

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 1297. In its previous examination of the case, in June 2012, the Committee made the following recommendations on the issues that remained pending [see 364th Report, para. 1124]:
   • ...
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to respond to the allegations concerning the expulsion of the national executive board of the complainant trade union from the INCES Guárico Socialist Training Centre, as well as impediments to a trade union assembly and to the right to hold trade union meetings in Caracas.
   • (c) The Committee regrets that the Government has not supplied concrete information on the events that might have led to disciplinary proceedings against two officials or trade union members and requests the Government to provide detailed observations on the dismissal procedure followed in the case of those two officials, and the events that might have led to the initiation of that procedure. The Committee recalls the principle whereby no worker or union official should be the target of sanctions or prejudicial measures as a result of their participation in legitimate trade union activities.
   • (d) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that INCES initiates collective bargaining without delay with the complainant trade union.
   • ...
2. 1298. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 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).

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1299. In its communication of 10 October 2012, the Government reports that, on 16 August 2012, a collective labour agreement concluded between the trade union organizations SINTRAINCES (the complainant organization in the present case) and the National Union of the Council of Socialist Workers of the National Institute for Socialist Training and Education (SINCONTRAS-INCES), and the employer, the National Institute for Socialist Training and Education (INCES), was approved.
2. 1300. With regard to the allegations concerning the expulsion of the national executive board of the complainant trade union from the INCES Guárico Socialist Training Centre and the alleged impediments to holding a trade union assembly and trade union meetings in Caracas, the Government states that the Directorate of National Inspection and Other Collective Labour Issues in the Public Sector of the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour and Social Security reported that the files corresponding to the (complainant) organization SINTRAINCES contain no information on these matters. The Government asks the Committee on Freedom of Association to request the complainants to provide more detailed information in this regard, so that the Government can duly respond, since there is no evidence whatsoever of these alleged infringements with the competent State authorities.
3. 1301. With regard to the allegation of the disciplinary proceedings taken against two officials and the events that might have led to them, the Government states that, according to the Directorate of Labour Relations of the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour and Social Security, as part of the procedure followed by INCES to determine misconduct, the employer alleged that the worker José Alexander Meza breached the rules of the institution and his obligations under existing labour laws, failing to fulfil his labour obligations, because in the course of the morning he suddenly and without justification left the workplace, without the prior authorization of his employer or the representative thereof; the employer also alleges that he stormed into the institute holding a placard that undermined its interests and had an impact on its organizational culture and institutional image, and that he disobeyed the orders and instructions issued by his supervisors by ignoring a memorandum stating that he could not leave the workplace during working hours. The Government states that the case is pending the outcome of two reports so that the appropriate administrative steps can be taken and the corresponding decision handed down.
4. 1302. With regard to the dismissal procedure initiated by the representatives of INCES against David Gregorio Duarte, the Government states that the grounds for his dismissal fall under sections 102(b) and (c) of the former Organic Labour Act (repealed) and relate to dismissal for alleged libel against the institution and serious misconduct. The Government adds that the appropriate procedure was followed, the evidence was duly presented and the case was referred to the labour inspectorate for the corresponding decision, which is expected to be made at the end of October 2012.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1303. With regard to recommendation (c), the Committee notes with interest that the complainant organization (SINTRAINCES) and the trade union SINCONTRAS-INCES concluded a collective agreement with INCES, which was approved on 16 August 2012.
2. 1304. With regard to the recommendation in which the Government is requested to respond to the allegations concerning the expulsion of the national executive board of the complainant trade union from the INCES Guárico Socialist Training Centre and the impediments to the right to hold trade union meetings in Caracas, the Committee takes note of the statements by the Government to the effect that the Directorate of National Inspection and Other Collective Labour Issues of the Public Sector of the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour and Social Security reported that the files corresponding to the (complainant) organization SINTRAINCES contain no information about these matters. The Government asks the Committee on Freedom of Association to request the complainants to provide more detailed information in this regard, so that the Government can duly respond, since there is no evidence of these alleged infringements with the competent State authorities.
3. 1305. The Committee recalls that, according to the allegations in question [see 364th Report, para. 1091], on 23 June 2010 in Guárico State, a group led by the regional manager of INCES and various bosses travelling with him forced the national executive board of SINTRAINCES to move out of the INCES Guárico Socialist Training Centre that they had been visiting on that day for the purpose of hearing complaints from workers in the region (according to these allegations, after an angry exchange, the trade union officials agreed to leave the Centre in order to avoid a violent turn of events).
4. 1306. The Committee considers that with the information presented by the complainant union which indicates that the regional manager of INCES Guárico is responsible for the alleged incidents and the date, the Government should be able to get in touch with this manager and send his observations, and requests it to do so without delay. With regard to the allegation that the complainant organization was given permission to hold an assembly of workers on 9 June 2010, but that on the day the workers were prevented from entering the auditorium and were subsequently told to refrain from attending another meeting on 18 June 2010 away from INCES premises, or face sanctions, the Committee, taking into account the request of the Government, requests the complainant trade union to provide additional information so that the Government can respond to the allegations, and in particular to indicate whether the alleged incidents were reported to the national authorities.
5. 1307. With regard to the disciplinary proceedings against trade union officials David Gregorio Duarte (Trujillo State) and José Alexander Meza (Táchira State) after they allegedly complained to the media or organized peaceful demonstrations in support of violated rights [see 364th Report, para. 1092], the Committee notes the statements made by the Government with regard to the procedure followed by INCES to determine misconduct, according to which the employer alleges that the worker José Alexander Meza breached the rules of the institution and his obligations under existing labour laws, failing to fulfil his labour obligations, given that in the course of the morning he suddenly and without justification left his workplace, without the prior authorization of his employer or the representative thereof; furthermore, the employer alleges that he stormed into the institute holding a placard that undermined its interests and had an impact on its organizational culture and institutional image, and that he disobeyed the orders and instructions issued by his supervisors by ignoring a memorandum stating that he could not leave the workplace during working hours. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the administrative case is pending the outcome of two reports and that once these are issued the appropriate decision will be handed down. The Committee underlines that the complaint was presented in 2010 and regrets the excessive delay in the proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to send it the decision that is handed down by the administrative authority and expects that it will take into account the principle mentioned in its previous examination of the case, whereby no worker or union official should be the target of sanctions or prejudiced as a result of their participation in legitimate trade union activities.
6. 1308. With regard to the disciplinary proceedings concerning the trade union official David Gregorio Duarte, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, dismissal proceedings are under way for alleged libel against INCES and serious misconduct, and that the case has been referred to the labour inspectorate for the corresponding decision, which is expected to be made at the end of October 2012. The Committee underlines that the complaint was presented in 2010 and regrets the excessive delay in the proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the decision that is handed down and stresses the importance of taking due account of the principle mentioned in the preceding paragraph.