Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 90, 1966

1. 43. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in February 1966 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body, as contained in paragraphs 106 to 115 of the Committee's 89th Report. In that report the Committee presented its conclusions and its final recommendations with regard to certain of the allegations, postponing examination of one allegation on which it had not received the Government's observations. The present report refers exclusively to that allegation.
2. 44. Colombia has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 45. In its complaint dated 14 September 1965 the International Federation of Christian Trade Unions (I.F.C.T.U.) stated that, as a result of the police measures adopted by the Government in its aim of preventing freedom of action for the trade union movement, there were very few trade union meetings that could be held in Colombia without the presence of government secret agents.
2. 46. By a communication dated 28 February 1966 the Government categorically rejects the suggestion that such measures have been adopted and states that it is without any foundation. It further states that the number of trade union organisations is increasing every day and that the Government in no way impedes their activities; there are over 3,000 first-level trade unions in the country, some 100 federations and two major labour Confederations which have collaborated with the Government, on a basis of autonomy and independence, in planning social policy, and these bodies are stated to be performing their functions normally and fully.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 47. When it examined another aspect of the same case in its 89th Report, the Committee pointed out that in a considerable number of cases it had stated that the right of trade unions to meet freely in their own premises, without need for prior authorisation and without supervision by the public authorities, constituted a fundamental element in freedom of association.