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. 57. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2006 meeting [see 342nd Report, paras 87–92]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government: (a) to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Constitution, the list of executive board members and the statutes of the Union of Employees and Workers in the Ministry of External Relations (UNISEMREX) was registered without delay; and (b) to send a copy of the appeal lodged against the decision to suspend union official Ms Luz Marina Hache Contreras for two months.
2. 58. The Committee takes note of the Government’s communication of 1 September 2006. The Committee notes that, with regard to the allegations relating to UNISEMREX, the Government states that the decision of the Ministry of Social Welfare to refuse to register the Constitution, the list of executive board members and the statutes of the trade union organization was based on the fact that the statutes of that organization contain articles that are contrary to Colombian legislation. Article 12, paragraph 17, refers to the right to strike, whereas union members are public employees for whom this right is prohibited; article 18 refers to the need to be of Colombian nationality and not to have been sentenced for a common crime for the past ten years; article 23, paragraph 4, refers to collective bargaining, whereas public employees do not enjoy that right; article 23, paragraph 13, refers to the designation of the Complaints Committee, whereas the Committee is not restricted to the members of one trade union organization but covers all trade unions operating in an enterprise; and article 42 stipulates that imprisonment for crimes which are not of a political nature is grounds for expulsion, which is contrary to the right to organize.
3. 59. In general terms, the Committee recalls that Article 3 of Convention No. 87 establishes that workers’ organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules and to elect their representatives in full freedom. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that the mere existence of legislation concerning trade unions in itself does not constitute a violation of trade union rights, since the State may legitimately take measures to ensure that the constitutions and rules of trade unions are drawn up in accordance with the law. On the other hand, any legislation adopted in this area should not undermine the rights of the workers as defined by the principles of freedom of association [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 370]. In this respect, the Committee observes that the refusal to register the statutes of the trade union organization is based on the fact that certain articles are contrary to the legislation in force in Colombia. The Committee observes, however, that some of the legislative provisions on which the administrative authority based its refusal are contrary to the provisions of the Conventions ratified by Colombia. The Committee recalls that, by virtue of Conventions Nos. 151 and 154, public employees should enjoy the right to collective bargaining and that the right to strike may be limited and even prohibited in the case of public officials who exercise authority on behalf of the State. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to proceed with the registration of the statutes of the trade union organization, as well as the Constitution and the list of executive board members, as soon as the organization has addressed the objections raised regarding the articles of its statutes, in so far as the objections are in accordance with the principles referred to.
4. 60. As to the copy of the ruling on the appeal lodged against the two-month suspension of union official Ms Luz Marina Hache Contreras, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it sent a copy in a communication to the Committee dated 24 January 2006. The Committee observes however, that, although the communication refers to the copy, it was not enclosed. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the aforementioned ruling on appeal.