Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 370, Octubre 2013

1. 333. The complaint is set forth in communications from the National Union of Public Servants, Officials and Service Contractors of the Territorial, District and Metropolitan Authorities of Colombia (SINALSERPUB) dated 31 August 2010 and 26 June 2012 (received by the Office on 9 July 2012).
2. 334. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 15 July 2013.
3. 335. Colombia 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).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 336. In its communications of 31 August 2010 and 26 June 2012, the SINALSERPUB made submissions in support of a complaint by the former workers of the San Juan de Dios Hospital (municipality of Rionegro, Antioquia). The complainant organization refers to the dismissal of three hospital workers who were covered by the collective agreement in force, article 2 of which provides that no worker shall be dismissed without proven just cause. The complainant adds that the dismissed individuals exhausted the administrative remedies before bringing their case before the judicial authorities (at first and second instance), where their application for reinstatement and compensation failed. They subsequently filed an application for protection of constitutional rights before the Penal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which declared the application inadmissible.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 337. In its communication of 15 July 2013, the Government states that the San Juan de Dios Hospital informed it that as part of the due process of restructuring the hospital with a view to ensuring self-sustainability, a retirement with compensation scheme was implemented for all civil servants. The individuals to whom the complainants refer accepted the retirement scheme and received compensation. The hospital adds that despite this, they launched legal proceedings for unfair dismissal which were rejected, and that the Supreme Court of Justice considered their application for protection of constitutional rights to be inadmissible.
2. 338. The Government itself submits that the complaint fails to meet the admissibility requirements under the ILO’s procedures since, as the complainant states, it is submitted by former workers of the San Juan de Dios Hospital who are not union members nor affiliated to a federation or confederation. The Government states that there is no evidence in the present case of restrictions on freedom of association and that the case instead pertains to individual situations of non-union workers. The Government adds that the individuals concerned took legal action but the courts found against them.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 339. The Committee observes that in the present case, the complainant organization alleges that it is supporting a complaint submitted by employees of the San Juan de Dios Hospital (municipality of Rionegro, Antioquia) concerning the dismissal of three workers (two female and one male) who were purportedly covered by the collective agreement in force, article 2 of which provides that no worker shall be dismissed without proven just cause.
2. 340. The Committee notes that the Government states that the hospital informs it that: (1) in accordance with the agreement approving the hospital’s restructuring process, a retirement with compensation scheme was implemented for all civil servants; (2) the three individuals to which the complainants refer accepted the retirement scheme and received compensation; and (3) despite this, they launched legal proceedings for unfair dismissal which were rejected and the Supreme Court of Justice considered the application for protection of constitutional rights to be inadmissible. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government submits that: (i) the complaint fails to meet the admissibility requirements under the ILO’s procedures since, as the complainant states, it is submitted by former workers who are not union members and not affiliated or confederated with the San Juan de Dios Hospital; (ii) there is no evidence in the present case of restrictions on freedom of association and the case instead pertains to individual situations of non-union workers; and (iii) the individuals concerned took legal action but the courts found against them.
3. 341. The Committee notes all of this information and considers that there have been no violations of trade union rights; and for this reason, it will not pursue the examination of the allegations submitted in this case.