Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 95, 1967

1. 205. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in May 1966 when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body as contained in paragraphs 176 to 208 of the Committee's 92nd Report.
2. 206. In paragraph 208 of that report the Committee, before continuing its examination of the case, recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government for further information. The Governing Body having approved that recommendation, the request for additional information was conveyed to the Government, which replied by a communication dated 14 November 1966.
3. 207. Honduras 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. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations relating to the Strike by the Rio Lindo Textile Mill Workers' Union
  208. 208 This series of allegations' consists basically of a protest against a strike in May 1965 by the Rio Lindo Textile Mill Workers' Union having been declared illegal, once the compulsory procedures for prior direct negotiation and conciliation had been exhausted after lasting over two years.
  209. 209 From the information supplied by the Government it appeared, inter alia, that the conciliation procedure could not take place for lack of a conciliation board set up in accordance with section 663 of the Labour Code. The High Court of Justice had in fact granted the undertaking's statutory appeal for protection against the Ministry's decision to appoint as ad hoc board consisting of representatives of the undertaking and the trade union, since the said section 663 provided that the members of such a board must be appointed at assemblies of workers and employers of the occupation or branch of industry concerned. Since it proved impossible, after conciliation procedure subsequently promoted by the Ministry, to reach an agreement concerning the signature and registration of a collective agreement, the union called a strike, which was declared illegal by government decision on the grounds, inter alia, that the conciliation procedure provided for in the Labour Code had not been followed.
  210. 210 Lastly, the Government states that in order to avoid a repetition of such a situation it submitted to Congress a draft decree to amend section 650 and 651 of the Labour Code, which was approved as Decree No. 62 of 31 October 1965.
  211. 211 In paragraphs 184 to 186 of its 92nd Report the Committee emphasised, among other principles applied by it in examining previous cases, that allegations relating to the exercise of the right to strike are within its competence in so far as they affect the exercise of trade union rights; that it normally recognises the right to strike of workers and workers' organisations as a legitimate means of defending their occupational interests; that in exercising the right to strike workers and their organisations must have due regard to temporary restrictions placed thereon, e.g. cessation of strikes during conciliation and arbitration proceedings in which the parties can take part at every stage; but that when restrictions of this kind are placed on the exercise of the right to strike the ensuing conciliation and arbitration proceedings should be adequate, impartial and speedy.
  212. 212 Observing that strikes are illegal in Honduras when the procedures for direct negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration laid down by the law have not been exhausted, but that in the case referred to in the complaint there appeared to be no conciliation and arbitration board competent to hear the case, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 208 (a) (ii) of its 92nd Report, to draw the attention of the Government to " the importance which it has always attached to the principle that, when temporary restrictions are placed on the right to strike such as, for example, refraining from strikes during conciliation and arbitration proceedings, such proceedings should be adequate, impartial and speedy ", and to request the Government to furnish the text of the amendment to sections 650 and 651 of the Labour Code.
  213. 213 In its reply dated 14 November 1966 the Government states that it shares the view of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning those requirements for the conciliation and arbitration proceedings and supplies the text of the Decree of 31 October 1965 amending sections 650 and 651 of the Labour Code. It appears from the preambular clauses of the decree that considerations of an economic character have prevented the establishment of conciliation and arbitration boards up to the present time.
  214. 214 With regard to the new wording of section 650 as given by the Government, the amendment appears to consist merely of the addition to the former text of a sentence listing persons who may not represent the parties on conciliation and arbitration boards (management executives of the undertakings affected, the president or secretary-general of the union, etc.). The new text of section 651 provides that, where a dispute affects only one economic sector or group of trades, the conciliation and arbitration board shall consist of the representatives of the employers, the workers and the Government and shall operate as necessary without being required to comply with sections 649 and 653 of the Code.
  215. 215 Sections 649 and 653 referred to in the new text of section 651, and from whose application the conciliation and arbitration boards are henceforth exempted where the dispute affects only one economic sector or group of trades, relate to the number and location of the permanent boards and the annual publication by the Ministry of a list of economic sectors which must be represented on such boards. Consequently, the Committee notes that the legislative amendment has no bearing on section 663, which was the provision that made it impossible to appoint an ad hoc board in the case now being examined by the Committee. Nor does the amendment appear to cover the procedure applicable to disputes which affect several economic sectors or trade groups.
  216. 216 In any case, the Government has not stated whether the conciliation and arbitration boards mentioned in the legislation are now in existence.
  217. 217 Bearing in mind the principle referred to in paragraph 212 above and to which the Government's attention has already been drawn, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to ask the Government to be good enough, in order to supplement the information available concerning this aspect of the case, to specify what measures it has taken or intends to take to set up the conciliation and arbitration boards whose intervention is necessary according to the law before a strike may lawfully be declared.
• Allegations relating to a Strike Called by the Central Federation of Unions of Free Workers of Honduras
  218. 218 The complainants stated that a general strike called in July 1965 by the workers' organisations, especially those affiliated to the Central Federation of Unions of Free Workers of Honduras (FECESITLIH), had been broken up after 14 hours by government armed pickets. It was also alleged that various unions were then almost completely destroyed, in particular that of the employees of the Central District Council, who were all dismissed, including a number of members of the union's executive. Bodies such as the National Autonomous Public Water Mains and Sewage Service (S.A.N.A.A.), the National Electric Power Company and the National Children's Guardianship Board also dismissed trade unionists and members of the executives of trade unions. Similar action was alleged to have been taken by private undertakings. The complainants added that the Government had so far done nothing to remedy these grave abuses.
  219. 219 The Government states in its reply that the general solidarity strike called by FECESITLIH in the capital city was unlawful according to the Labour Code and that it had been broken up by groups of civilians, who compelled the workers' pickets to withdraw from the entries to workplaces they were guarding. As a result of the disturbance caused by the strike, the Government had declared a state of siege and had ordered the arrest of Mr. Julio César Villalta Matamoros, Mr. Carlos Alberto Reyes Pineda and other persons, who were accused of offences against the security of the State. Court proceedings had begun and the accused persons had been released on bail.
  220. 220 Although the Government does not specify under which provisions of the Labour Code the strike called by FECESITLIH was to be considered unlawful, the Committee observes that according to section 537 of the Code federations and Confederations are not entitled to declare strikes. In this connection the Committee had recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 208 (b) of its 92nd Report, to draw the Government's attention to the importance which it attached to the opinion expressed by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the I.L.O when it examined the application of Convention No. 87 by Honduras. According to that Committee the provision contained in section 537 is incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, which, with reference to federations and Confederations, refers to Article 3 which, in turn, provides that workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to " organise their administration and activities and formulate their programmes " and that the public authorities must refrain " from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof ".
  221. 221 In the same report the Committee also recommended the Governing Body to ask the Government for information as to whether judicial proceedings had been initiated to ascertain the facts in connection with the breaking-up of the strike pickets and, if the persons arrested and tried were trade unionists, what had been the precise reasons for their arrest. The Government had also been requested to communicate the text of the judgments given in the case of those persons and its observations concerning the allegations relating to the destruction of trade unions.
  222. 222 In its reply of 14 November 1966 the Government states essentially that the acts committed by individuals or groups in order to remove the strike pickets came within the purview of the penal courts and that any workers who considered themselves injured could appeal to those courts. The Ministry of Labour was not competent to intervene in matters of such a nature. The proceedings against Mr. Villalta Matamoros and Mr. Reyes Pineda on charges of offences against the security of the State were following their due course and the accused were free on bail. The other persons tried were not trade unionists. The Government supplied a copy of a certificate from the President of the Supreme Court of Justice stating that the case was under secret examination prior to court proceedings. In the opinion of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, neither the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), nor the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), contained any provisions which would oblige the Government of Honduras to furnish the information requested in connection with the proceedings. Full assurance could, however, be given to the Committee on Freedom of Association that there had been " no infringement of freedom of association or the right to organise and bargain collectively ", but that in strict application of the laws of the Republic legal proceedings had been taken against the persons concerned.
  223. 223 With regard to the allegations relating to the destruction of trade unions, the Government denies them and provides a series of certificates issued by the authorities responsible for the registration of trade unions and showing that the relevant records contain entries on various dates in 1966 relating to the executive committees of all the organisations mentioned by the complainants (Union of Employees of the National Children's Guardianship Board, Union of Employees of the Central District Council, Union of Employees of the National Electric Power Company and Union of Employees of S.A.N.A.A.).
  224. 224 In various previous cases the Committee has stressed the importance it attaches to the principle that strike pickets acting in accordance with the law should not be subject to interference by the public authorities. In the present case, while it appears from the information supplied by both the complainants and the Government that incidents were caused following on the strikers having placed pickets on guard, the complainants state, without giving further details, that these strike pickets were broken up by " government armed pickets ". The Government denies all responsibility for the incidents. Consequently, and since the complainants have not supplied precise details that would enable the Committee to determine whether the allegations are well-founded, the Committee considers that there would be no purpose in further examination of these allegations.
  225. 225 With regard, however, to the arrest and trial of two trade unionists, mentioned not in the complaint but in the information supplied by the Government, the Committee notes that those persons were accused of offences against the security of the State, allegedly committed during the disturbances arising out of the strike. In this connection the Government has not provided detailed information that would enable the Committee to decide, with a full knowledge of the facts, that the measures taken against such persons were unconnected with their trade union activities. It was for that reason that the Committee recommended the Governing Body, at its session held in May 1966, to request the Government to supply information concerning the precise grounds for the measures taken against those persons, with the text of the judgments given. The text requested of course referred to the outcome of the trial and not to the interlocutory proceedings. In this connection, the Committee feels it appropriate to point out, as it has done on many previous occasions, that when it has had to examine matters which were the subject of pending national judicial proceedings it has generally followed the practice of asking the government concerned to supply the texts of the judgments given and of the reasons adduced therein when it considered that such judgments might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well-founded.
  226. 226 The Committee notes the assurances given by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras to the effect that trade union rights have not been violated, but it considers that the additional information previously requested of the Government concerning this point in particular is necessary in order to complete the elements of information that would enable it to come to a decision.
  227. 227 With regard to the allegations concerning the " destruction " of various trade unions and the dismissal of leaders and members of those unions, the Committee notes that these allegations were made in general terms by the complainants, who did not supply any further particulars, and that the Government, besides denying the truth of the allegations, provides information to the effect that the executive committees of the unions in question had gone through the normal registration procedure for trade unions on dates following the presentation of the complaint, which would seem to show that the unions continue to operate. Consequently, and since the complainants have not supplied adequate information in support of these particular allegations, the Committee considers that to examine them further would serve no useful purpose.
  228. 228 In these circumstances, and for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 225 and 226 above, the Committee recommends the Governing Body again to request the Government to be good enough to furnish, as soon as possible, additional information concerning the precise reasons for the arrest and trial of the trade unionists Mr. Julio César Villalta Matamoros and Mr. Carlos Alberto Reyes Pineda on charges of offences against the security of the State, and also to inform the Committee in due course of the results of the trial and to furnish the text of the judgments given with the grounds therefor.
• Allegations relating to the Annulment of the Resolutions of a Trade Union Assembly
  229. 229 The complainants alleged that the Government had declared the proceedings of a General Assembly of FECESITLIH, held in May 1965, null and void, leaving the Federation without leadership.
  230. 230 From the detailed observations sent by the Government it appeared that the Ordinary General Assembly of the complainant Federation had elected an executive committee headed by Mr. Carlos H. Reyes but that two workers had objected to the subsequently proven attendance and voting on the part of representatives of two civil organisations that had previously been refused registration as trade union organisations because their members were not covered by provisions of the Labour Code: an administrative decision therefore annulled the election of the executive committee and other bodies of the Federation, refused the registration applied for and ordered the convening of a new assembly.
  231. 231 According to the observations of the Government, an extraordinary general meeting of FECESITLIH was held from 15 to 17 October 1965, and new elections took place. As a result two separate lists were presented to the General Directorate of Labour for registration as the executive committee of the Federation. The Directorate received objections to both, which were eventually settled in favour of the list headed by Mr. Eulalio López Amaya and " procedure began for the registration " of that list.
  232. 232 When examining this information at its meeting held in May 1966, the Committee observed that Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), provides that workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes, and that the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, this principle being applied to federations and Confederations by Article 6.
  233. 233 The Committee recalled that in a previous case relating to Honduras, in which allegations were made regarding the suspension of the registration of the executive committee elected by a trade union, the Committee had observed that by reason of the measures of an administrative nature adopted by the General Directorate of Labour the union was for some time deprived of ruling bodies and of representatives of the organisation. The Committee referred to the opinion that it had already expressed on other occasions, namely that the removal by an administrative authority of a person from his office in a trade union is a procedure that might lead to abuses or to the violation of the generally recognised right which organisations possess of electing their representatives in full freedom and organising their own administration and activities. Since the suspension of the results of an election procedure may have similar effects to the suspension of the organisation itself, the Committee referred to what it had already pointed out previously, namely that when the measures of suspension are adopted by the administrative authority there is a risk that they may appear arbitrary even when they are provisional and temporary and even when they are followed by judicial action.
  234. 234 The Committee had also considered that the principles established in Article 3 of Convention No. 87 did not prevent supervision or control of the internal acts of a trade union if those internal acts violated legal provisions or rules, but that, in order to guarantee an impartial and objective procedure, control should be exercised by the relevant judicial authority. In the present case, since, according to the information available to the Committee, the executive committee of the complainant federation had still not been registered, the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 208 (e) of its 92nd Report, to draw the Government's attention again to the last-mentioned principle, and request it to inform the Governing Body as soon as possible as to the present situation with regard to the procedure for the registration of the executive committee of FECESITLIH and to enclose the text of any decisions that might have been issued in that respect.
  235. 235 In its reply of 14 November 1966 the Government states that the executive committee headed by Mr. Eulalio López Amaya was registered on 24 January 1966. The Government supplied the text of the ministerial decision ordering such registration, adding that the federation in question had subsequently held further elections, as a result of which a new executive committee had been elected and registered in its turn on 13 June 1966, according to a certificate attached to the Government's reply.
  236. 236 In view of the additional information supplied by the Government, from which it appears that since 24 January 1966 the ruling bodies of the Central Federation of Unions of Free Workers of Honduras have again been duly and lawfully registered, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to decide that this aspect of the case does not call for further examination.