Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 350, Juin 2008

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

1. 98. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in November 2007 [see 348th Report, paras 822–837]. On that occasion, noting that the complainant emphasized the fact that bringing a case before the courts would be too lengthy a process, the Committee requested the Government to send copies of the labour inspection reports relating to this dispute without delay, to continue taking measures, subject to substantive evidence and/or information warranting the contrary, for the reinstatement of the many dismissed union officials and members of the Trade Union of Workers at Industrias Tiara SA de CV (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 emphasized the need to impose speedy and dissuasive sanctions for anti-union acts and requested the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
2. 99. In a communication dated 28 February 2008, the Government states, with regard to the measures for the reinstatement of the dismissed union officials, that two complaints have been filed with the First Divisional Labour Court of San Pedro Sula by the dismissed workers. On 10 August 2006, Ms Laura Peña Bonilla, Ms María Zenia Gómez, Ms Mayra Suyapa Carrasco and Mr Eusebio Martínez Alvarado filed an ordinary complaint relating to their dismissal with the First Sectional Labour Court of San Pedro Sula in the department of Cortés. The Government adds that, on 23 March 2007, the first instance ruling was issued by the First Divisional Labour Court of San Pedro Sula in favour of the complainant workers. Subsequently, on 10 May 2007, the Labour Appeals Court of the department of Cortés upheld the aforementioned ruling. Consequently, the lawyer for Industrias Tiara SA de CV submitted an appeal for legal irregularities to the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in Case No. S.L. 212-07. The Government sees fit to mention that the company against which the complaint was brought has expressed its intention, via the Private Enterprise Board of Honduras, to comply with the ruling of the competent national court. The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to keep it informed with regard to compliance with the ruling.
3. 100. The Government adds that, on 21 July 2006, the legal representative of the SITRATIARA filed an ordinary complaint with the First Divisional Labour Court of San Pedro Sula in the department of Cortés for the dismissal of the members of the executive committee. On 23 November 2006, Industrias Tiara SA de CV challenged the aforementioned initial complaint. The second complaint is still before the first instance body on account of lack of action by the complainant lawyer (the legal representative of SITRATIARA). The Committee takes note of this information and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the judicial proceedings in question.
4. 101. With regard to the prevention of anti-union measures, the Government states that the State Secretariat for Labour and Social Security Matters and the Private Enterprise Board of Honduras have exchanged correspondence and held talks with their representatives with regard to the complaint submitted by the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF) in order to prevent the implementation of anti-union measures. The Committee takes note of this information.