Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 344, Mars 2007

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 46. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in June 2006 [see 342nd Report, paras 64–73], when it requested the Government to: (a) keep it informed of the final outcome of the pending court case relating to the dismissal of union leaders of the ASEINPEC in violation of trade union immunity; and (b) provide a copy of decision No. 8333625-005, of 2 August 2002, relating to the dismissal of union leaders and members in the municipality of Puerto Berrío so that the Committee could examine whether or not there was anti-union discrimination in the restructuring process in full possession of the facts.
2. 47. The Committee notes the Government’s communication dated 1 September 2006. It observes that the Government has not provided its observations on the pending court case relating to the dismissal of union leaders of the ASEINPEC. The Committee notes the communication from ASEINPEC dated 24 May 2006, in which it refers to matters already raised and indicates that the members of the National Executive Board are the victims of death threats. The Committee recalls the importance of legal proceedings being concluded expeditiously and it requests the Government to supply a copy of the judgement as soon as it is delivered. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the safety of the trade union leaders who are under threat, to undertake the appropriate investigations to identify and punish those responsible and to keep it informed on this matter.
3. 48. The Committee notes the copy of decision No. 8333625-005 of 2 August 2002, issued by the Labour Inspectorate of Puerto Barrío. The Committee notes that, in its introductory paragraphs, which set out the reasons for imposing a fine on the municipality for the dismissal of 57 members of the Union of Puerto Barrío Municipal Workers, the labour inspector indicated that “the inspectorate considers that, in objective terms, based on the findings of the investigation, the right of association of the unionized workers was disregarded in their collective dismissal, which also placed under threat the right of the respective trade union organization”. The inspector then adds that “it has been found that, between the months of July and December 1999, 57 members of the Union of Puerto Barrío Municipal Workers were unilaterally dismissed by the municipal administration of Puerto Barrío, represented by the mayor of the municipality …”. “The coincidence observed, not only in the number of workers affected, but also the fact that their dismissals occurred at the same time, and not least that they were all, without exception, members of the trade union organization, and that all the dismissals were unjustified, clearly demonstrates the unity of purpose, or in other words the clear intention to remove unionized workers from the administration, regardless of their length of service.” Under these conditions, taking into account the conclusions reached by the labour inspector of Puerto Barrío, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures for the reinstatement without delay of the 57 dismissed workers without loss of wages and, if reinstatement is not possible in view of the time that has elapsed, for their full compensation.
4. 49. The Committee notes the communication from the Single Confederation of Workers, dated 8 August 2006, concerning the mass dismissal in 1992 of SOFASA workers who were members of SINTRAUTO, Envigado subcommittee, in relation to which the Committee requested the Government in a previous examination of the case [see 338th Report, para. 711] to ensure that the workers concerned were fully compensated. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant organization, the workers have been compensated in accordance with the requirements established in the Substantive Labour Code for cases of unjustified dismissal. The Committee notes the request made to it by the complainant organization to determine whether this compensation may be considered full. In the first place, the Committee is bound to recall that, when examining the allegations in question, it considered that they concerned matters which went far back in the past and that it did not examine the substance of the allegations. It nevertheless requested that the workers be compensated fully. The Committee considers that compensation is full when it is in conformity with the pertinent national legislative provisions and that, where the parties are not in agreement, they must turn to the judicial authorities to determine the issue.
5. 50. The Committee notes the additional information provided by the Regional Federation of Workers in the Eastern Andean Area of Colombia (FETRANDES) in a communication of 23 October 2006, in which it refers to the dismissal of Jorge Eliécer Miranda Téllez, member of the Executive Board of FETRANDES, in the context of the restructuring of the Bogotá Traffic and Transport Department, without complying with the requirement for his trade union immunity to be lifted. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent its observations on this matter and requests it to do so without delay.