Informe provisional - Informe núm. 372, Junio 2014

1. 308. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 27 September 2012 presented by the Trade Union, Indigenous and Campesino Movement of Guatemala (MSICG).
2. 309. Since there has been no reply from the Government, the Committee has been obliged to postpone its examination of the case four times and made three urgent appeals to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time [see 368th Report, para. 5; 370th Report, para. 6; and 371st Report, para. 6]. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 310. Guatemala 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. 311. By a communication dated 27 September 2012, the complainant organization alleges that in August and September 2012 two consecutive attempts were made to establish a new trade union organization at the Tax Supervisory Authority and that both initiatives were completely quashed by that institution with the acquiescence of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, demonstrating the executive authority’s wish to obstruct the establishment of trade unions within the national tax administration. In this regard the complainant organization states that: (i) the Labour Directorate-General at the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare refused to register the trade unions (the Union of Workers with Principles and Values at the Tax Supervisory Authority (SITRAPVSAT) and the “Pro Dignity” Union of Workers at the Tax Supervisory Authority (SIPROSAT)) for unjustified or non existing reasons; (ii) most workers who took part in establishing the trade unions were immediately dismissed by the supervisory authority, supposedly for reasons of reorganization; (iii) the aforementioned workers were granted reinstatement orders by the labour tribunals with which the supervisory authority failed to comply, barring the dismissed workers and the minister responsible for implementing the reinstatement orders from its premises.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 312. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has not provided its observations in relation to the complainant’s allegations, even though it has been requested several times, including through several urgent appeals, to present its comments and observations on this case.
2. 313. In these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1971)], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 314. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for trade union rights in law and in practice. The Committee remains convinced that, while this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31]. The Committee asks the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
4. 315. The Committee observes that the present case deals with allegations concerning the unjustified refusal by the Ministry of Labour to register two trade unions within the tax administration, anti-union dismissals affecting the union founders and refusal by the tax administration to comply with reinstatement orders.
5. 316. Firstly, the Committee wishes to recall that the right to recognition through official registration is an essential facet of the right to organize. The right to official recognition through legal registration is an essential facet of the right to organize since that is the first step that workers’ or employers’ organizations must take in order to be able to function efficiently, and represent their members adequately [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 295]. Hence the Committee urges the Government to send as a matter of urgency its observations regarding the allegations of unjustified refusal to register the two trade unions. Also emphasizing that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment [see Digest, op. cit., para. 771) and recalling that, under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Workers’ group of the ILO Governing Body on 26 March 2013 further to the complaint concerning non-observance by Guatemala of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), made under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, the Government made a commitment to adopt “policies and practices to ensure the application of labour legislation, including … effective and timely judicial procedures”, the Committee strongly hopes that, if the existence of the judicial decisions referred to by the complainant is verified, the Government will ensure that the administration concerned has complied with the orders to reinstate in their posts the workers who were dismissed further to the establishment of a trade union and will keep the Committee informed in this respect.