Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 348, Novembre 2007

822. The complaint is contained in a communication from the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) dated 5 September 2006.

1. 823. In view of the Government’s failure to reply, the Committee has been obliged on three occasions to postpone its examination of this case. At its meeting in June 2007, the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government, drawing its attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it might present a report on the substance of these cases if the observations or information requested had not been received in due time [see 346th Report, para. 10]. To date, the Government has not sent its observations.
2. 824. Honduras has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 825. In its communication of 5 September 2006, the ITGLWF states that it is presenting a formal complaint against the Government of Honduras because of its inability to guarantee that workers at the Tiara plant can exercise the right of freedom of association. The plant in question is situated in the export processing zone in Calpules, San Pedro Sula. The Trade Union of Workers at Tiara Industria SA de CV (SITRATIARA) was formed some time ago but its officials were then dismissed. Nevertheless, a new executive body was elected and the new officers obtained registration from the Ministry of Labour on 6 May 2006. The new union applied to affiliate to the ITGLWF.
2. 826. The ITGLWF alleges that elected members of the second executive body were also dismissed between 21 and 29 June 2006 on the pretext of “restructuring”. The trade union then elected four acting officers, but they too were immediately dismissed, as were four other union members. The dismissed members of the union’s executive board were: the President, María Zenia Gómez, dismissed 21 June 2006; the Treasurer, Laura Peña Bonilla, dismissed 22 June 2006; the General Secretary, Eusebio Martínez Alvarado, dismissed 27 June 2006; the Proceedings Secretary, Francisca Rivera, dismissed 28 June 2006; Fiscal Policy Officer Mayra Suyapa Carraxo Baquedano, dismissed 29 June 2006; Vice-President Marquín Anael Vásquez, dismissed 29 June 2006; Education Secretary Santos Manuela Banegas Aguilar; Cooperative Affairs Secretary Mirian Martha Guerra Barillas, dismissed 29 June 2006; and Press and Propaganda Secretary Olga Janeth Domínguez González, dismissed 29 June 2006. The following trade union officials were also dismissed: interim Cooperative Affairs Secretary Mariana Luna, dismissed 3 July 2006; interim Vice-President Antonio Rivera, dismissed 3 July 2006; interim President Ana Ruth Guzmán, dismissed 10 July 2006; and interim Proceedings Secretary Reina Martínez, dismissed 10 July 2006.
3. 827. The complainant organization adds that the following trade union members were also dismissed: Karla Ortega, dismissed 4 July 2006; Erika Vásquez, dismissed 4 July 2006; Mayra Baquedano, dismissed 5 July 2006; Lillian Martínez, dismissed 10 July 2006; Reina Martínez, dismissed 10 July 2006; Ana Ruth Guzmán, dismissed 10 July 2006; Lilian Ramos, dismissed 19 July 2006; Edith Aguilar, dismissed 19 July 2006; Marilyn Ortega, dismissed 20 July 2006; Nery Jiménez, dismissed 20 July 2006; Belkis Bonilla, dismissed 26 July 2006; Isidro Aníbal Zelaya, dismissed 26 July 2006; Ana Grijalva, dismissed 26 July 2006; Elizabeth Miranda, dismissed 27 July 2006; Santos Manuales, dismissed 31 July 2006; Luis Marcelino González, dismissed 1 August 2006; Carolina Rodríguez, dismissed 1 August 2006; Uber Romero, dismissed 1 August 2006; José Francisco, dismissed 1 August 2006; Juan Reyes, dismissed 2 August 2006; Nildy Flores, dismissed 8 August 2006; Edith Moreno, dismissed 8 August 2006; Wilder Castro, dismissed 18 August 2006; Henry Fernández, dismissed 18 August 2006; Julia Castillo, dismissed 22 August 2006; Jefry, dismissed 22 August 2006; Marie Esther, dismissed 22 August 2006; Teresa Argueta, dismissed 23 August 2006; Andrea Lagos, dismissed 25 August 2006; and Priscila Cruz, dismissed 25 August 2006. The ITGLWF indicates that, of the workers dismissed as a result of “restructuring” between 21 June and 25 August, only seven were not union members. There was never any prior discussion on restructuring at the plant, and since mid-July there have been reports that the company is seeking to hire new workers.
4. 828. The ITGLWF states that it has been in contact with the company Tiara on a number of occasions, and that the management has never even attempted to explain why the proposed restructuring was necessary, or indicated whether there were objective and verifiable criteria for selecting these workers rather than others for dismissal if restructuring was in fact being carried out. According to the ITGLWF, the company has stated that it was not aware that the dismissed workers were trade union members. However, the trade union officials enjoyed legal protection by virtue of trade union immunity, and the company should have reinstated them as soon as it was informed of the situation.
5. 829. The ITGLWF states that, contrary to the statements made by the company, there are indications that the dismissals were anti-union in nature, and specifically that:
6. – supervisors and managers made it clear to the union officials concerned that they had been selected for dismissal because of their participation in union activities. For example, the supervisor of line 14, Suyapa Machado, remarked to the union General Secretary Eusebio Martínez Alvarado just before he was dismissed that she knew he was a union member and demanded to know who had recruited him;
7. – when the union officer Mirian Guerra tried to deliver the Ministry registration certificate to the company on 29 June, the company refused to accept it and told her she was dismissed;
8. – on Friday, 30 June, after the dismissal of the last member of the union’s executive body, the Director of the company instructed supervisors to organize meetings at each production line and to inform workers that the union was finished and henceforth they should concentrate on their work;
9. – when a labour inspector tried to visit the plant on 29 June 2006 in order to confirm that dismissals had occurred and to inform the management that the union had received its legal registration certificate, he was denied access to the plant even when he returned with a police officer. The inspector concluded in his report that he was unable to deliver the certificate to the company’s management;
10. – on 7 June 2006, the dismissed General Secretary, Eusebio Martínez, struck up a conversation with the senior managers’ driver who informed him that the Director had told him he would never allow a trade union in his factory (“a union committee set up is one that has to be knocked down” are his alleged words).
11. 830. The complainant states that, on 13 July 2006, a meeting took place at the Regional Labour Office with the aim of resolving the problem. The representative of the Ministry of Labour recommended that the union officials be reinstated in their posts. However, at a follow-up meeting on 18 July 2006, the legal representative of the Tiara plant indicated that the company did not agree with reinstatement. In view of this situation, the labour authorities merely noted that, since the issue could not be resolved through conciliation, the parties were free to refer the case to the labour courts.
12. 831. In early August 2006, there were reports that supervisors had begun to gather workers’ signatures in support of a letter expressing their satisfaction with conditions at the factory. Needless to say, the letter has no legitimacy whatsoever and merely serves to highlight the unfair pressure put on the workers by management. About a week later, the manager of the company arranged a meeting at which he stated his intention of setting up a workers’ committee as an alternative to the union. On 19 July 2006, the ITGLWF sent a communication to the Minister of Labour reminding her that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour to enforce the Labour Code and to make it clear to the Tiara company that observance of the law is not optional. Bringing a case before the courts is too lengthy a process and not a viable way of resolving issues of anti-union discrimination and enabling union officials to be reinstated in their posts while continuing to hold the union office to which their members have elected them.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 832. The Committee deeply regrets the fact that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was made, the Government has not sent its observations as it was requested to do on several occasions, in particular through the urgent appeal addressed to it at the Committee’s meeting in June 2007. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see the Committee’s 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session], the Committee will present a report on the substance of this case, given that it does not have the observations requested from the Government.
2. 833. The Committee reminds the Government, first, that the purpose of the whole procedure for the examination of allegations concerning violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for the rights of employers’ and workers’ organizations in law and in fact. If this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, governments on their side should recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed factual replies concerning the substance of the allegations brought against them [see the Committee’s First Report, para. 31].
3. 834. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainant organization alleges that, in the context of anti-union harassment, between June and August 2006 the Tiara plant in the Calpules export processing zone in San Pedro Sula dismissed the members of the executive board of SITRATIARA and many rank and file union members (according to the complainant the plant claimed that the reason for this was restructuring, although of the workers dismissed between June and August 2006, only seven were not union members, no information had ever been given on restructuring, and since July 2006 the plant has been trying to hire new workers). According to the allegations, the company had not facilitated the task of the labour inspectorate and was promoting a “workers’ committee” as an alternative to the union.
4. 835. Noting the complainant’s statements to the effect that the Regional Labour Office has intervened on at least two occasions in an attempt to resolve the dispute and recommended that the union officials be reinstated in their posts, the Committee recalls that it has on many occasions emphasized that “Anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions”, and that “One of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 769 and 799].
5. 836. Under these conditions, noting also that the complainant emphasizes that bringing a case before the courts would be too lengthy a process, the Committee requests the Government to send copies of the labour inspection reports relating to this dispute, to continue without delay to take measures, subject to substantive evidence and/or information warranting the contrary, to bring about the reinstatement of the many dismissed union officials and members of SITRATIARA, and to ensure that the company does not adopt any anti-union measures, in particular, that it does not promote a workers’ committee as an alternative to the trade union. The Committee also emphasizes the need to impose speedy and dissuasive sanctions for anti-union acts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.