Visualizar en: Francés - Español
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body- 20. The Committee examined this case, in which the complainant organization alleges restrictions to its president’s access to workplaces, unilateral reductions and discrimination in relation to union leave, non-compliance with collective agreements, anti-union dismissals, exclusion and questioning of trade union work, the use of a bonus to promote early, unregulated collective bargaining and impediments to the exercise of the right to strike by the Chilean Chemical and Mining Enterprise (hereinafter “the enterprise”) and its subsidiaries, at its March 2016 session [see 377th Report, paras 245–270]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee requests the complainant organization to provide additional information to the Government concerning the allegation that its president has been denied access to the mining sites of the enterprise, so as to enable the Government to investigate should this concern persist. The Committee also invites the Government to obtain information in this respect from the enterprise through the employers’ organization concerned, and requests the Government to keep it informed in that regard.
- (b) While acknowledging the efforts made by the competent authorities to resolve the issues relating to trade union leave, the Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information regarding the handling of the allegations of anti-union dismissals through indiscriminate reliance on the provisions of article 161 of the Labour Code, including any relevant administrative or court decisions, expecting that, if acts of anti-union discrimination have been committed, adequate compensatory measures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are imposed. The Committee invites the complainant organization to provide any additional information that it may have in connection with these proceedings, in particular any legal action taken in that regard.
- (c) The Committee invites the Government to take the necessary initiatives to enhance dialogue between the enterprise and the complainant organization, with a view to preventing similar disputes in the future and promoting the exercise of freedom of association, and to keep it informed in that regard.
- 21. In a communication dated 18 October 2017, the Government submitted its observations in respect of the Committee’s recommendations. The Government states that: (i) it requested a detailed report from the Regional Labour Directorate of the Antofagasta Region and summoned the complainant organization to verify whether the enterprise had brought its procedures into line with the law and had refrained from violating the rights of its workers and hindering the work of its officials; (ii) a labour reform undertaken in 2017 represents significant progress in relation to the exercise of the right to bargain collectively and to protection against dismissals and anti-union discrimination; (iii) this reform could make it possible to improve the quality of dialogue between the enterprise and its workers; and (iv) the next negotiations to be carried out at the enterprise will have to be conducted under the terms of the aforementioned labour reform.
- 22. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. With regard to the allegation that the president of the complainant organization was denied access to the mining sites of the enterprise (recommendation (a)), the Committee notes that the complainant organization has not provided the additional information requested of it, either directly or through the Government, despite having been invited by the Government to do so. With regard to the handling of the allegations of anti-union dismissals (recommendation (b)), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 2017 labour reform increased protection against anti-union dismissals. It notes, however, that neither the Government nor the complainant organization, which had been invited to provide additional information, provided new information concerning the allegations made in the context of the present case. In these circumstances and based on the above elements, the Committee considers that this case is closed and will not pursue its examination.
