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. 51. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in June 2006 [see 342nd Report, paras 78–82]. On that occasion the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters that were still pending, to which the Government replied in communications of 1 and 19 September and 25 October 2006.
2. 52. With regard to the allegations relating to the dismissal of SINTRABENEFICENCIAS officials for having formed a trade union in the Cundinamarca district, the Committee noted the information provided by the Government that, for the officials to be reinstated, there has to be a court decision, and asked the Government whether the workers still have access to the appropriate judicial channels to seek reinstatement. In its communication of 1 September 2006, the Government states that article 48 of Act No. 712 of 2001 provides that complaints pertaining to trade union immunity have a time limit of two months from the date of the dismissal, transfer or decline in working conditions. The action brought by the workers in the present case is therefore time-barred. The Committee requests the complainant organization to state whether it applied to the appropriate courts within the prescribed time limits.
3. 53. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Council of State concerning the legality of Decree No. 1919, which suspended certain advantages in respect of wages and benefits that were provided for in collective agreements. In its communication of 1 September 2006, the Government stated that it was enclosing a copy of the Council of State’s ruling on the legality of the abovementioned Decree. Since there was no such enclosure, the Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the ruling handed down by the Council of State on the legality of Decree No. 1919.
4. 54. With regard to the dismissal of Jorge Eliécer Carrillo Espinosa, President of the Union of Workers of the Social Welfare Fund of Cundinamarca (SINDECAPRECUNDI), the Committee notes the communications of 26 July and 29 August 2006 from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) referring to this matter and alleging that, in addition to Mr Carrillo Espinosa, other trade union leaders were dismissed without waiver of their trade union immunity. In its communication of 1 September 2006, the Government cites a ruling of 20 November 1998 by the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca, which states that “the established procedure for the dismissal of a public employee was fully observed, so it cannot be claimed that any rules or regulations were violated or ignored; however, it should be emphasized that, whilst the rules set out in the Substantive Labour Code do not apply to public employees, and there being no requirement to seek the jurisdictional authority’s permission for the separation of the complainant, the appropriate administrative decision should have been issued, giving the reasons why he could not be kept on.” The ruling later states that the separation was due to the decree dismissing the staff of the Social Welfare Fund of Cundinamarca. The Committee notes this information and points out to the Government, as it has already done previously, that, in the event of workforce reduction, it is necessary to take into account the principle contained in the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), which mentions, among the specific measures of protection, that “recognition of a priority should be given to workers’ representatives with regard to their retention in employment in case of reduction of the workforce” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, para. 832]. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will keep this principle in mind in the future, including with regard to workers in the public sector.
5. 55. With regard to the dismissal of members of the executive board of the Union of Official Workers of Cundinamarca (SINTRACUNDI) without waiver of their trade union immunity, the Government indicates that the workers were not dismissed unilaterally; rather, the employment relationship was terminated by mutual agreement, in accordance with the provisions of article 47(D) of Decree No. 2127 of 1945, the corresponding conciliation report having been duly signed. The Committee notes this information.
6. 56. The Committee notes the communication of 5 June 2006 in which the CGT indicates that, in the case of the Tolima Department (involving restructuring and collective dismissals and covered in a previous examination of this case) [see 330th Report of the Committee], the immunity of the trade union leaders was not waived and complaints lodged with the judicial authorities have not achieved their reinstatement. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent observations on this matter and requests it to do so without delay.