Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 239, Juin 1985

1. 46. The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) presented a complaint of alleged violations of trade union rights in a communication dated 12 September 1984. The Government replied in a communication dated 4 February 1985.
2. 47. Colombia has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No.087) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No.098).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 48. In its communication of 12 September 1984, the WFTU refers to the situation of the Colombian Trade Union of Workers of the National Federation of Coffee Growers (SINTRAFEC). It alleges that this Union - which represents 5,500 employees of the undertakings, "National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia" and "Almacafe" - presented the employer with a list of demands on 9 February 1984 and attempted, in vain, direct settlement and conciliation. At its National Assembly the SINTRAFEC voted for the setting up of an arbitration board, since it does not cover the required number of workers to call a strike. Both parties were summoned to compulsory arbitration but the employer lodged an appeal (recurso de reposición) for the recommencement of proceedings and against the summons on the grounds that (a) the SINTRAFEC membership did amount to 51 per cent of the employees and (b) under section 31 of Legislative Decree No. 2351 of 1965, the decision to go to arbitration should have been taken by a meeting of all workers and not only by the unionised employees. At the time of the complaint, the employer's appeal had not been settled.
2. 49. According to the complainant, if the decision goes against the union, a series of negative effects would ensue such as the denial of the right of unions to approach the arbitration boards voluntarily. In any case, it claims that the arbitration boards were set up to restrict the right to strike and that their composition is unfair since both parties to a dispute nominate an arbitrator and if they cannot agree on the third arbitrator, the State appoints one. Another negative repercussion would be that unions would be obliged to hold regional meetings of all workers which would not only be costly, but would also run the risk of employer influence on the non-unionised workers (for example, through non-attendance, leaving meetings early) and would have to be attended by a representative of the Ministry of Labour since they would not be trade union meetings. In addition, this kind of meeting could be objected to by the employer, at first instance before the Ministry and then before the Council of State which could take over a year to decide the matter.
3. 50. In conclusion, the complainant points out that in 1967 and 1970 SINTRAFEC accepted arbitration awards in the same circumstances as the present affair, namely when it only represented over a third of the employees but not 51 per cent. It states that the union has always presented claims and signed collective agreements for all the workers concerned whether or not members of SINTRAFEC; in the present case, the non-unionised workers sent their requests to the union so as to fit in with the formal list of claims.

B. The Government's reply.

1. 51. In its communication of 4 February 1985, the Government describes the background to the dispute and explains that a request was made for the setting up of an arbitration board in conformity with section 34 (b) of Legislative Decree No. 2351 of 1965. According to the Government, the Minister convened the arbitration board on 28 June 1984, but the employer contested this on the grounds of the trade union's membership number. The Minister of Labour managed to bring the parties together for effective dialogue which resulted in the signature of a collective agreement and a final solution of the matter.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 52. The Committee notes that this case concerns a dispute over a trade union's representativity during negotiations over a list of demands presented to the employer in February 1984. It also notes that, according to the Government, the dispute was finally settled with the signature of a collective agreement between the union concerned and the employer after intervention by the Minister of Labour.
2. 53. As regards the complainant's reference to the composition of arbitration boards, the Committee notes that under Legislative Decree No. 2351 of 1965, sections 35 and 36, these boards are formed by the appointment of three members - one by each of the parties and one by the Ministry of Labour - who shall be chosen from the tripartite list of nominees which is established every two years. The Committee observes that the nominees on the government list shall be "Colombian citizens who are registered lawyers or specialists in economic and social questions and who are of recognised integrity". It therefore considers that the impartiality and objectivity of the arbitration boards is guaranteed by the legislation and does not call into question the principles of freedom of association.
3. 54. In view of the above and especially taking into account that the labour dispute in question would appear to have been settled by the signing of a collective agreement for the workers concerned, the Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination.