Visualizar en: Francés - Español
- 50. At its March 2013 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 367th Report, para. 1309, adopted by the Governing Body at its 317th Session (March 2013)]:
- (a) With regard to the allegations that, 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, the Committee considers that, with the information provided by the complainant trade 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.
- (b) With regard to the allegation that the complainant trade union was given permission to hold an assembly of workers on 9 June 2010, but that on that day the workers were prevented from entering the auditorium and were subsequently told to refrain from attending another assembly 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.
- (c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision that is handed down in the disciplinary proceedings against union officials José Alexander Meza and David Gregorio Duarte and underlines the importance of taking due account of 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.
- 51. In its communications dated 12 June 2013 and 31 January 2014, the National Union of Workers of the National Institute for Socialist Training and Education (SINTRAINCES) (the complainant trade union in this case): (i) provides the additional information requested to support the allegation of the prohibition against participation in the assemblies of 9 and 18 June 2010, including the circular of 17 June 2010 from INCES indicating that the workers were not authorized to participate in the trade union meeting, with a warning of possible sanctions; (ii) alleges that, since the submission of the complaint in 2010 and in relation with its activities, INCES has been engaging in anti-trade union practices, referring in particular to a campaign to disqualify the leaders and members of SINTRAINCES (including harassment through messages on social networks inciting hatred against the president of SINTRAINCES and the occupation of its building headquarters on 6 August 2013 by workers apparently prompted by the president of INCES) and the establishment of a parallel trade union with close ties to the employing institution (SINCONTRAS-INCES); and (iii) indicates that although discussions to negotiate collectively were initiated in January 2012, the INCES authorities made the discussion of the collective agreement conditional on the participation of the other trade union promoted and financed by the employing institution. Due to the pressure placed on it, SINTRAINCES had to accept the participation of this other trade union (despite the fact that the vast majority of the workers had objected to this dual participation), which had a negative effect on securing improvements to the clauses as the parallel trade union backed all the objections raised by the employing institution.
- 52. The Government provides its observations in communications dated 15 May and 17 October 2014 and 9 October 2015.
- 53. With regard to the allegation of the illegal removal of leaders and the failure to authorize assemblies, the Government indicates that it met with the INCES authorities, indicating to them that they should authorize the access of the trade union leaders to the facilities and the participation of workers in the assemblies organized by the trade unions as long as they do not affect the normal functioning of the institution. The Government specifies that it has no information that a similar situation has since occurred.
- 54. With regard to the allegations of interference through another trade union, the Government maintains that it does not intervene in, or give its views on, the mutual accusations of both organizations and that it is a matter of an inter-union dispute. The Government recalls that the previous collective agreement was negotiated jointly by SINTRAINCES and SINCONTRAS-INCES and that this was made possible owing to an agreement between them (as there are no legal mechanisms to impose bargaining by two or more organizations).
- 55. With regard to the disciplinary proceedings brought against the union officials José Alexander Meza and David Gregorio Duarte, the Government states that INCES launched an inquiry to determine the nature of a labour offence regarding activities unrelated to freedom of association. The Government indicates in this respect that: (i) the proceedings brought against José Alexander Meza were dismissed; and (ii) with regard to David Gregorio Duarte, INCES dropped the proceedings and the worker therefore remains active in his post.
- 56. In its last communication, the Government underlines that in 2014, SINTRAINCES proposed a collective agreement to be discussed with INCES. This proposal was accepted by the Labour Inspectorate and, following appropriate discussions, negotiations were completed on 22 September.
- 57. The Committee notes that, according to the Government: (i) the alleged disciplinary proceedings did not result in any measure being taken against the trade union leaders; (ii) measures were taken to ensure that the INCES authorities authorized the access of the trade union leaders to the facilities and the holding of assemblies by the institution’s trade unions; and (iii) in 2014, the complainant organization negotiated a new collective agreement with the employing institution. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this case.
