Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 348, Novembre 2007

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

1. 28. The Committee last examined this case at its meeting in June 2006 [see 342nd Report, paras 15–17], when it regretted that the Government had not informed it of the situation with regard to the Trade Union of “Puntanos” Judicial Employees’ (SIJUPU) application for trade union status, and requested the Government to inform it of the ultimate outcome of the procedure.
2. 29. In a communication dated 20 February 2007, the SIJUPU states that for the last three years, the trade union has suffered from discrimination, persecution and offence at the hands of the Higher Court of Justice, as demonstrated by the negotiating and signing of agreements with groups of employees who lack legal representation, and by notifying six trade union members, as well as members of the executive committee (who hold trade union immunity) of summary administrative proceedings against them. Ms María Fabiana Aquín, Mr Raúl Suárez, Ms Lía Barroso and Ms Susana Muñoz, members of the SIJUPU and the executive committee, have been notified, to their astonishment, that summary administrative proceedings riddled with irregularities have been initiated against them. Given that these proceedings are beset by errors, motions have been filed to have them ruled null and statute-barred. In addition, the application for amparo (protection of constitutional rights) filed by the judicial employees of the first judicial district in 2002 on the basis of the lack of safeguards and equal opportunities (they were not eligible for promotion) is before the Higher Court of Justice. As part of this application, two extrajudicial agreements were reached with this body, in July 2005 and April 2006, which could not be approved since they were not submitted to the Higher Court of Justice.
3. 30. The SIJUPU adds that the amparo application filed by the SIJUPU General Secretary, Mr Juan Manuel González, in 2004 (for having been dismissed while holding trade union immunity) is an additional measure, accepted by the employer with finality, but no definitive decision has been reached as to the substance, in spite of various requests made during the proceedings. A request for reconsideration made in 2004 has yet to be heard. The SIJUPU maintains that very little has changed since the initial submission, given that the trade union continues to do its utmost to protect its members’ rights, while the employer does not promote freedom of association and is a long way from complying with decisions handed down by national and international bodies in the interests of maintaining an ideal relationship with an organization which, in this case, is exercising the will of most judicial employees in the province by seeking to improve its members’ quality of life. It stresses that it has achieved trade union status following a hard-fought battle lasting more than three years, during which it has had to overcome all manner of legal, administrative and bureaucratic obstacles, and that common sense should prevail when initiating effective and adult dialogue.
4. 31. In a communication dated 16 August 2007, the Government states that in July 2005, new judges were appointed to the Higher Court of Justice of San Luis Province. These appointments were the result of a significant social and political agreement, inasmuch as they marked the beginning of a process involving popular participation through a system of public hearings, similar to that adopted by the State for nominating judges to the Supreme Court. The principal issues to be heard by the Court included the trade union representation of the judicial employees, since two groups were vying for such status, posing various difficulties. This situation began to change after the Ministry of Labour granted the SIJUPU trade union status in its decision No. 783.
5. 32. Direct action was taken by staff belonging to both trade unions during the first year of the new Higher Court, up until the SIJUPU was recognized as a trade union. Legal proceedings were also brought in an attempt to obtain advantages or recognition by submitting all manner of complaints. These included an application for amparo with protective measures against the Higher Court itself (Judicial employees v. Higher Court of Justice (amparo)). In fact, this judicial measure brought the administrative career of the employees involved to a standstill. Records of the proceedings show that over 50 judges took cognizance of the case, as a result of numerous recusals after they considered that they were, for various reasons, involved or implicated in the case that led to the application for amparo being submitted. In these circumstances, an agreement was reached with the complainants whereby they were permitted to participate in staff competitions and, subsequently, to be promoted, which has since been made effective. This means that the substance of the issue and of the original complaint has been resolved.
6. 33. The Government also states that at the same time as the agreement was taking shape, the Committee of the Trade Union of Judicial Employees was meeting with the Higher Court to discuss overhauling labour conditions, the Statutes concerning judicial employees and conditions for dismissal, reaching significant agreements. The Government states that, to date, there have been no new confrontations since the new judges were appointed, while also recognizing that there are other matters that have yet to be resolved, such as those subject to judicial or administrative procedures, the resolution of which falls under the remit of those who are specifically and exclusively competent in such matters, which are not matters for the Higher Court.
7. 34. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government, and in particular that: (1) it was decided to grant the SIJUPU the trade union status that it had requested some years ago; (2) an agreement was reached with the employees who had filed applications for amparo, whereby they were permitted to participate in staff competitions, and, subsequently, to be promoted; (3) significant agreements have been reached between the trade union and the Court authorities; and (4) since the new judges were appointed to the Higher Court, there have been no new confrontations, but there are also other matters that have yet to be resolved, such as those subject to judicial or administrative procedures. In these circumstances, the Committee hopes that the judicial and/or administrative proceedings will reach a conclusion in the near future and that the dialogue between the parties initiated, according to the Government, following the appointment of the new Higher Court authorities, will continue to be consolidated.