Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 253, Novembre 1987

1. 227. The complaint is contained in a communication from a trade union named "El Mochito" (SOEM) dated 13 March 1987. The Government submitted its observations in a communication dated 16 June 1987.
2. 228. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 229. In its communication of 13 March 1987, the SOEM alleges that the management of the mining company Rosario Resources Corporation harassed workers and their representatives with a view to destroying the trade union organisation which represents them. The company set up shock units and dismissed workers for symphathising with the trade union, thereby infringing the collective labour agreement drawn up between the parties, which establishes procedures for laying off staff.
2. 230. The SOEM points out that the company selectively dismissed workers connected with the trade union, as in the case of Cristóbal Almendárez and Eva Réos, trade union officials who were dismissed for no apparent reason. The Rosario Resources Corporation also downgraded several workers to lower posts, with less wages, which, in accordance with legislation in force, is tantamount to an indirect dismissal. This, for example, happened to Maximiliano Salinas. The SOEM adds in its communication that the Rosarios Resources Corporation, as from 1 January 1987, withheld more than 30,000 Lempiras (L30,000) belonging to the trade union, allegedly to pay the trade union contribution and loans, with a view to paralysing the trade union financially.
3. 231. As regards the official recognition of the SOEM's executive committee, the communication adds that, in January 1987, the Ministry of Labour issued a certificate stating that as long as there were two executive committees and that neither had been legally recognised, the executive committee which completed its term of office on 31 December last year would continue to carry out its functions. However, the company refused to accept the Ministry of Labour's certificate, stating that it was invalid.
4. 232. As regards the collective agreement signed between the workers and the company, it was mentioned that the company had not fulfilled the terms of article 25 of the agreement signed with the workers, according to which "the company, acknowledging the need to contribute towards the natural culture by training its workers and dependents, undertakes to provide a sum in legal tender for a bipartite committee composed of the company's and trade union's representatives, set up to promote secondary, technical and university education". As regards the agreement concluded by the company to provide housing for the workers, the communication states that claims for improvements and building of housing, in accordance with the worker's needs, had been disregarded.
5. 233. Finally, the SOEM states, in its communication, that medical assistance, towards which workers contribute with a 2.5 per cent reduction in their net wage, has deteriorated since 1980.
6. 234. The communication concludes by requesting the Government to instruct the Ministry of Labour to take legal measures against the above-mentioned company in order to settle the problems affecting the workers.

B. The Government's reply

1. 235. In its communication of 16 June 1987, the Government states that it has tried to attend to all the claims put forward by the trade union "El Mochito" and that on many occasions, the Secretary of Labour and Social Welfare has ordered staff members of the Labour Inspectorates to go on the spot to investigate allegations made by the SOEM, in an immediate attempt to reconcile the parties involved and to settle the problems raised by meeting and discussing with trade union officials.
2. 236. In its communication, the Government points out that the President of the Republic received the company's management and workers' representatives and that it undertook to grant a subsidy which would benefit all workers affected by the strike decreed in the Rosario Resources Corporation at the "El Mochito" workplace, half-way through 1986.
3. 237. In its communication, the Government points out that the Rosario Resources Corporation has closed down and that, in accordance with the labour legislation in force, the corporation has, to date, paid all the corresponding benefits to the workers engaged by it.
4. 238. Finally, the Government points out that there are strong possibilities that at least half of the workers laid off as a result of the closure of the Rosario Resources Corporation will be recruited by the other company negotiating the purchase of the "El Mochito" mine. The Government also sends copies of the records on the inspection carried out by the staff of the General Labour Inspectorate and official documents stating that the President of the Republic fulfilled his commitment to pay a subsidy to the workers, which bear witness to the good faith of the Government's efforts; it adds that it will send any information it receives on the number of workers recruited by the new company.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 239. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant has submitted allegations in connection with the selective dismissals of workers sympathising with the trade union "El Mochito"; it also alleges that the company held back funds belonging to the trade union, that it did not recognise the trade union executive and that it failed to fulfil the commitments entered into in the collective agreement concluded between the employer and workers.
2. 240. The Committee notes the efforts made by the Government to try and resolve the problems alleged by the complainant, particularly its attempts to reconcile the parties, the inspections carried out by staff of the labour inspection offices at the workplaces and the meeting the President of the Republic held with representatives of the company and trade union officials of the SOEM.
3. 241. However, the Committee notes that, at the time the complaint was submitted (March 1987), the trade union "El Mochito" was still encountering problems with the mining company Rosario Resources Corporation.
4. 242. In these circumstances, the Committee feels bound to draw attention to certain principles which are relevant to the allegations submitted by the complainant. As regards the dismissal of trade unionists, the Committee, noting the allegation that the company infringed the clauses of the collective agreement relating to cuts in staff, feels bound to recall generally that, in accordance with Article 1 of Convention No. 98, ratified by Honduras, workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment. Similarly, the Committee would recall that the basic regulations that exist in the national legislation of Honduras prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination are inadequate when they are not, as in the present case, accompanied by procedures to ensure that effective protection against such acts is guaranteed.
5. 243. As regards the company's failure to acknowledge the temporary recognition by the Ministry of Labour of one of the two trade union's executives, the Committee would point out that the complainant has not supplied sufficient information to determine which of the two executive committees is the legitimate one. In this connection, the Committee would recall the principle that recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in his undertaking, or the most representative of those unions, is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in his undertaking.
6. 244. Finally, the Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government on the closure of the mining company Rosario Resources Corporation and that negotiations are taking place with another company for the purchase of the "El Mochito" mine.