Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 356, Mars 2010

1. 1582. The complaint is contained in communications from the Venezuelan Workers’ Confederation (CTV) of 25 July 2008. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 9 March and 12 May 2009 and 8 March 2010.
2. 1583. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 1584. In its communications of 25 July 2008, the CTV alleges that the Government has refused to negotiate collective agreements in various branches of the public sector.
2. 1585. The Venezuelan Teachers’ Federation (FVM) submitted a draft collective agreement to the Ministry of Labour on 21 March 2006, to be negotiated with the Ministry of Education. This agreement provides protection for more than 200,000 educators, but it has not yet been possible to begin negotiations as the Ministry of Labour has not issued the necessary convocation.
3. 1586. In addition, the collective agreement for workers in the national public administration expired in 2002. The National Federation of Public Employees (FEDEUNEP) submitted its last draft in February 2007, but negotiations have not yet begun because the Ministry of Labour refuses to issue the necessary convocation.
4. 1587. The Federation of Health Workers (FETRASALUD) has been denied the right to participate in collective bargaining in its sector since 2000.
5. 1588. The above trade unions belong to the CTV. They have all been denied the right to negotiate collective labour agreements, with negative consequences for thousands of state workers. The national Government, in outright violation of the ILO’s Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), is denying these trade unions any interlocution and attempting to fix working conditions unilaterally.
6. 1589. Furthermore, the CTV alleges that, on 5 May 2005, the house that serves as headquarters for the Falcón State Federation of Workers (FETRAFALCON) was forcibly expropriated by the regional government. At the time when this occurred, 26 unions belonged to the organization, altogether representing some 15,000 workers. The organization was made to accept an indemnity payment, although this has not yet been paid in full.
7. 1590. In addition, on 3 April 2006, a group of people linked to the national Government seized the headquarters of the Mérida State Federation of Workers (FETRAMERIDA), and since then, with Government support, has continued to occupy it, preventing its legitimate users from utilizing it. At the time when this occurred, 34 unions belonged to the organization, altogether representing more than 15,000 workers.
8. 1591. The CTV adds that, on 26 March 2007, the building that served as headquarters for the Miranda State Federation of Workers (FETRAMIRANDA) was seized by court order, at the instigation of the regional government, and then, on 26 March 2008, the unions were evicted from their offices, which were “taken” by government supporters belonging to official units known as “missions”. FETRAMIRANDA brings together 95 unions that occupy premises in the Federation building.
9. 1592. On 8 October 2007, the offices of the Trujillo State Federation of Workers (FETRATRUJILLO) were subjected to an eviction order, issued by a judge, at the instigation of the national Government. Some 30 unions, representing more than 10,000 workers, pursued their daily activities at these offices. This was an unconstitutional judicial seizure, with an acting judge entirely abusing his authority and with support from the security forces, pickets, national guard and national police in this invalid and illegal act committed by an acting judge, despite requests to prevent it and appeals to the appropriate legal authorities. The buildings are currently in a considerable state of disrepair.
10. 1593. The Unified Federation of Workers of the Federal District (FUTDF) and the Carabobo State Federation of Workers (FETRACARABOBO), the largest regional organizations in the country, have also been evicted from their offices.
11. 1594. All the above union organizations are CTV members and there can be no doubt that the object of these arbitrary measures, some by the national Government and others by the relevant regional governors, is to destroy the CTV.
12. 1595. According to the allegations, the incidents described are severely damaging to the principles of freedom of association enshrined in Convention No. 87 and demonstrate once more that the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has repeatedly violated this Convention and is failing to respect the commitments it has assumed before the ILO.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1596. In its communication of 9 March 2009, the Government states, with respect to the allegation concerning the FVM, that meetings are currently being held under the auspices of the public sector labour inspectorate to discuss the draft collective labour agreement submitted by the Federation on 13 May 2008. The collective labour agreement under discussion covers some 350,000 educators and comprises 56 clauses, of which 28 have already been approved at meetings held at the labour inspectorate with the participation of the FVM and the Ministry of Education. Negotiations have been conducted in a peaceful atmosphere, highlighting the will of the Venezuelan Government, through the labour administration, to fulfil its functions as mediator and facilitator.
2. 1597. With regard to the allegations made by FEDEUNEP, according to which it submitted a draft framework agreement to regulate working conditions in the public sector on 21 February 2007, the Government states that the Federation last held elections on 25 October 2001, meaning that the term of its executive committee ran from 2001 to 2006, in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of its own statutes. Its term expired on 25 October 2006, and the Federation’s executive committee is therefore in electoral delinquency.
3. 1598. In this regard, the Government continues, the Federation was informed on 30 June 2007, through the National Labour Inspectorate, of the need to resolve the situation of electoral default in order to negotiate the draft framework agreement, in accordance with the provisions of section 128 of the Organic Labour Act. To date, according to information received from the competent administrative authority, FEDEUNEP has not submitted evidence that it has rectified the electoral default of the members of its executive committee.
4. 1599. For additional information, there follows a transcript of the content of section 128 of the Organic Labour Act Regulations, which stipulates that the members of trade union executive committees whose term has expired may not organize, undertake or represent the union in procedures other than the purely administrative, as follows:
   • Section 128. Trade union elections. Expired term: Trade union organizations are entitled to hold their own elections, with no restrictions other than those established in their statutes and in law. Members of trade union executive bodies whose elected term has expired, in accordance with the provisions of sections 434 and 435 of the Organic Labour Act and their union statutes, shall not organize, undertake or represent the union in legal procedures other than the purely administrative.
5. 1600. From this, it can be seen that FEDEUNEP is not in a position to negotiate the draft framework agreement submitted, as the term for which the members of its executive committee were elected has expired and the organization has not provided evidence to show that it has held further elections to rectify the situation. Once the situation has been resolved, negotiations can proceed on the draft collective labour agreement, in accordance with labour standards and in full compliance with ILO Convention No. 98.
6. 1601. With regard to FETRASALUD, the Government reports that this organization’s status is the same as in the two previous cases, i.e. its executive committee is also in electoral default as, since 21 September 2001 (when its last executive committee elections were held), no evidence has been presented to show that new elections have taken place.
7. 1602. The Government underlines that all the above categorically demonstrates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has not denied any of the trade union organizations named their right to collective bargaining, much less acted in a manner detrimental to workers. The accusations of the CTV lack any basis at all, as the fact that discussion of the draft collective agreements has not begun is not attributable to the Venezuelan Government but to failure by the union organizations in question to observe legal requirements.
8. 1603. Trade unions have full autonomy to conduct their elections, as this is a prerogative granted by section 33 of the Organic Electoral Authority Act, which states in this regard that the National Electoral Council must respect the autonomy and independence of trade unions by observing the relevant international treaties signed by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and by providing them with appropriate technical and logistical support.
9. 1604. With regard to the cases involving alleged forced expropriation of the Falcón State Federation of Workers on 5 May 2005, alleged occupation of FETRAMERIDA’s headquarters in the city of Mérida on 3 April 2006, alleged occupation of FETRAMIRANDA’s offices on 26 March 2007, alleged eviction of FETRATRUJILLO in October 2007, and alleged eviction of FETRACARABOBO, for which no date is given, the Government expresses great concern that these cases are presented without any foundation whatsoever; there are insufficient details to verify the information provided by the complainants. Nevertheless, with the greatest willingness to act in a spirit of cooperation, the Government states that every effort will be made to elucidate the truth of the matters raised. Likewise, the Government makes it very clear that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela maintains the separation and independence of public authorities, and states that the Committee will be informed promptly of the results of consultation between the bodies competent to resolve the situation, if the allegations are found to be true.
10. 1605. More specifically, with regard to the alleged expropriation of FETRAFALCON on 5 May 2005, the Government states that, on 29 December 2005, FETRAFALCON, in accordance with a prior agreement to resolve the dispute through transaction, sold premises to the regional executive for the state of Falcón, adopting the amicable resolution mechanism provided for in the Act on expropriation for reasons of public utility, in order to comply with the procedure established in law and required by a decree of the Governor for the state of Falcón. This transaction is being processed and the regional executive for the state of Falcón has made the appropriate payments. However, in exercise of their rights, FETRAFALCON’s representatives filed a claim before the Third Court of First Instance for Civil, Mercantile, Agrarian and Transport Matters against the Falcón regional executive for payment of the amount outstanding from the sale agreement to which they submitted. The claim was in turn transmitted to the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice so that it could determine which tribunal was actually competent to examine the case; the entire procedure has been carried out in accordance with sections 70–71 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. 1606. With regard to the alleged occupation of FETRAMERIDA’s offices in the city of Mérida on 3 April 2006, the Government states that the CTV has not provided sufficient details to enable information on the allegations to be obtained.
12. 1607. With regard to the allegation concerning the seizure of FETRAMIRANDA’s offices on 26 March 2007, the Government states that, on 7 March 2007, the examining court transmitted to the Political and Administrative Chamber the request for seizure prepared by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Miranda, under section 599.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the case it was bringing against FETRAMIRANDA. In ruling No. 913, published on 6 June 2007, the Chamber found the request for seizure to be admissible, and therefore ordered it to be carried out once 90 consecutive days had elapsed from the date on which official notification of the parties was recorded. On 20 February 2008, the legal representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the state of Miranda requested the seizure order approved by the Chamber to be carried out; the appropriate action was duly taken. On 5 March 2008, the seizure ordered on 5 June by the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its ruling in the case brought by the Bolivarian state of Miranda against FETRAMIRANDA was carried out. In order to prevent this – continues the Government – FETRAMIRANDA lodged an objection, which was examined and ruled inadmissible; once this had been decided, the order was carried out. It is necessary to point out that the principal claim relates to title to the property, an issue which has not been resolved by the seizure and can only be decided by a judgement of merit from the examining court.
13. 1608. With regard to the allegation concerning the alleged eviction from FETRATRUJILLO’s offices in October 2007, the Government reports that, on 16 May 2005, the Federation, in the person of its directors (Mr Argenis Carreño Marín, Mr Orlando de Jesús Torres and Mr Óscar Orlando Rivas) brought before the Third Court of First Instance for Civil, Mercantile, Agrarian, Transport, Banking and Constitutional Matters of the Trujillo state jurisdiction proceedings to obtain protection of their premises against Mr José Santos Gil, Mr Antonio Zambrano, Mr Eleazar Buitrago, Mr Ramón Carrizo, Mr Jhonny Estrada and Mr Jorge Alexander Romero. In examining this case, the judge was required to establish certain facts and, on that basis, decide a posteriori whether FETRATRUJILLO had tangibly and effectively fulfilled the requirements of section 782 of the Venezuelan Civil Code in accordance with the provisions of section 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is important to point out that the parameters for the decision taken in this case were and are clearly defined, namely: (a) to determine with absolute certainty whether the complainants are the legitimate possessors of the property at the centre of the dispute; (b) whether their possession has lasted more than a year and a day; and (c) whether the legitimate possession claimed by the complainants has been interrupted; fulfilment of these requirements is and was indispensable in order for the interdiction claim for protection of possession brought by FETRATRUJILLO to succeed.
14. 1609. In their case, the complainants allege acts of violence, stating that: “… twenty citizens proceeded to engage arbitrarily in a series of disorderly activities, such as knocking over gates and fences …”. This situation could not be verified, as the legal inspection requested by FETRATRUJILLO’s representatives revealed that the fences and gates were fully erect, the main façade was in perfect condition and the gate at the main entrance was working properly, which showed that the “disorderly” events described by the complainants had not occurred and that their allegations were false.
15. 1610. Furthermore, the Government states that the complainants have in no way demonstrated that the property is theirs, because such buildings simply are not the property of any individual, as they belong ipso jure to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, since they are part of the nation’s heritage; they are the property of the nation, over which there is no prescription of rights over time, much less rights of possession, and over which the Venezuelan State has ownership and possession throughout time and space. National property does not lose these attributes over time or space.
16. 1611. This case proceeded, as has been stated, in accordance with legally established procedure. During its examination, representatives of FETRATRUJILLO did not present or provide any document to show that any government agency had authorized them to remain on the premises. Based on this, on 8 February 2006, the examining judge ordered the immediate reversion of the premises to state ownership, through the appropriate measures, and there was certainly no eviction procedure, as the complainants claim: rather, the legally established procedure was followed. The parties subsequently appealed this decision and the acting judge of the Higher Court for Civil, Mercantile and Transport Affairs and Minors of the Trujillo state jurisdiction rejected the appeal on 8 October 2007, upholding the final ruling in the interdiction claim for possession that resolved to return the premises to state ownership.
17. 1612. With regard to the alleged eviction of FETRACARABOBO, the Government states that the complainants attempted to bring proceedings for constitutional protection in respect of the alleged occupation of premises to which they claim title. In the face of these proceedings, the Carabobo State Government and the Valencia town hall provided documents granting right of title to the premises in question, in a reply that was transmitted to the examining court by the Public Prosecutor for Carabobo State. In addition, the content of the ruling verifies that there is no document granting property title for the premises in question to this trade union federation.
18. 1613. In this case, the court examining the constitutional protection claim ruled that there had been ordinary proceedings of sufficient brevity and effectiveness to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim, i.e. the restitution of property. It therefore ruled that the constitutional protection claim was inadmissible, as it fell within the criteria for inadmissibility set out in section 6.5 of the Organic Act on Protection for Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Equally, it is important to note that it is well established in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that, in the case of eviction from or seizure of premises, the appropriate prompt, summary and effective ordinary process which the alleged injured parties should invoke is a possession interdiction. The Third Court of First Instance for Civil, Mercantile, Agrarian and Banking Affairs of the Carabobo state jurisdiction therefore ruled, on 25 April 2005, that the above constitutional protection claim was inadmissible (rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice attached).
19. 1614. Based on the above, the Government requests that these allegations be disregarded as they lack any substance or basis in fact, given that there has been no violation of the right to freedom of association or any other right enshrined in the country’s domestic law or the international standards it has ratified. Every matter raised by the complainants concerns a procedure carried out with respect for the rights of the parties involved and observing due process, in full compliance with the relevant legal standards.
20. 1615. In its communication of 8 March 2010, the Government indicates that the premises that are being utilized by the workers’ federations of the States of Miranda, Trujillo and Mérida are state property and thus as essential part of the territorial integrity of the State. Having an undeniable right to those premises, the State has started recuperating this property by making use of the protective function of public order, on the understanding that this notion embodies all those standards of public interest that require unconditional compliance, are not revocable by private demand and seek to make the general interest of society prevail over the private interest of the individual. It should be noted that such actions of the State could be considered a violation of international principles enshrining the exercise of freedom of association (ILO Convention No. 87), although the State, by making use of the protective function of public order, has recuperated property, which was up to now in the hands of one single “stream” within the trade union movement; this situation having created up to now a situation of inequality as regards the rest of the trade union movement that could not benefit from the premises for its trade union activities. Thus, far from constituting the presently alleged violation of freedom of association, the State of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, invoking on the one hand its legitimate interests in favour of society and, on the other hand, the strengthening of the trade union movement, contributed to the elimination of hideous inequalities among workers’ organizations existing in the country. It would be unfair if one single “stream” within the trade union movement benefited from the premises of the nation to the detriment of the rest. In keeping with the guidance contained in international human rights conventions and provided by the ILO supervisory bodies, the Government has therefore acted to avoid union discrimination or favouritism of one union stream over another.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1616. The Committee observes that in this case the CTV alleges refusal by the authorities to negotiate with public sector CTV trade unions, along with actions by the authorities to expropriate various member federations or deprive them of their premises.
2. 1617. With regard to the authorities’ refusal to negotiate with various public sector trade union federations belonging to the CTV, the Committee notes the Government’s statements that meetings are being held under the auspices of the public sector labour inspectorate to discuss the draft collective agreement (which would cover some 350,000 educators) submitted on 13 May 2008 by the FVM, with 28 out of 56 clauses approved so far. The Committee regrets the fact that, despite two years having elapsed since the draft collective agreement was submitted, bargaining has still not finished, and expresses the firm hope that the collective agreement will be signed in the very near future. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
3. 1618. With regard to the alleged refusal by the authorities to negotiate with FEDEUNEP on a draft framework agreement to regulate working conditions in the public sector, and the authorities’ alleged refusal to let FETRASALUD participate in collective bargaining in its sector since 2000, the Committee regrets to observe that the Government justifies its refusal on the grounds that both federations have been in “electoral default” since 2006 because they have not provided evidence of executive committee elections since that year. The Committee wishes to point out, in this regard, that it has repeatedly criticized the intervention of the National Electoral Council (which is not a judicial body) in elections to trade union executive committees.
4. 1619. In various earlier cases, the Committee has observed how this body and its activities have stymied the results of trade union elections until lengthy procedures with uncertain outcomes have been resolved, and that this type of intervention has had a negative impact on organizations belonging to the CTV; it is therefore not surprising that these union organizations disown the electoral system guided by the National Electoral Council, which has itself been the subject of many objections, not only from the Committee on Freedom of Association, but also from the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, for its violations of Article 3 of Convention No. 87. In particular, the Committee would like to refer to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards in its June 2009 discussion of the application of Convention No. 87, in which it urged the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that intervention of the National Electoral Council in proceedings of union elections, including its intervention in cases of complaints, was only possible when the organization explicitly so requested, and to take active steps to amend all the legislative provisions incompatible with the Convention to which the Committee of Experts had objected. The Committee on the Application of Standards also requested the Government to intensify social dialogue with representative organizations of workers and employers. This being the case, and bearing in mind that the federations within the CTV unite numerous organizations and thousands of workers, the Committee requests the Government to bargain with FEDEUNEP and FETRASALUD or to allow them to participate in bargaining in their respective sectors, and to report to it in this regard.
5. 1620. With regard to the alleged forced expropriation by the Falcón state government of FETRAFALCON’s offices, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statements that: (1) on 29 December 2005, FETRAFALCON, in accordance with a prior agreement to resolve the dispute through transaction, sold premises to the regional executive for the state of Falcón, adopting the amicable resolution mechanism provided for in the Act on expropriation for reasons of public utility, in order to comply with the procedure established in law and required by a decree of the Governor for the state of Falcón; (2) this transaction is being processed and the regional executive for the state of Falcón has made the appropriate payments; (3) however, in exercise of their rights, FETRAFALCON’s representatives filed a claim before the Third Court of First Instance for Civil, Mercantile, Agrarian and Transport Matters against the Falcón regional executive for payment of the amount outstanding from the sale agreement to which they submitted; (4) the claim was in turn transmitted to the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice so that it could determine which tribunal was actually competent to examine the case; and (5) the entire procedure has been carried out in accordance with sections 70–71 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Committee concludes that the state of Falcón has still not paid FETRAFALCON the full amount for the premises expropriated for reasons of public utility through the amicable resolution mechanism. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the result of the process under way and to urge the Falcón state executive to pay the debt it owes to FETRAFALCON.
6. 1621. With regard to the allegation that, on 3 April 2006, a group of people linked to the national Government seized the headquarters of FETRAMERIDA, and since then, with Government support, has continued to occupy it, preventing its legitimate users from utilizing it, the Committee notes that the Government requests further details in order to be able to obtain information on the alleged occupation. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has approached neither FETRAMERIDA nor the regional executive to obtain more details. The Committee invites the complainant to provide further information concerning its allegations and invites the Government to request information without delay from the regional authorities in the state of Mérida, so that the Committee can examine this allegation without delay. It also invites the Government to ensure that the occupation of trade union premises ceases.
7. 1622. With regard to the allegation that, on 26 March 2007, the building that served as headquarters for FETRAMIRANDA was seized by court order, at the instigation of the regional government (according to the complainant, on 26 March 2008, the unions were evicted from their offices, which were “taken” by Government supporters belonging to official units known as “missions”), the Committee takes note of the Government’s extensive statements, from which it emerges that: (1) the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court declared the request for seizure of the premises – the headquarters of FETRAMIRANDA – made by the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the state of Miranda admissible; and (2) the basic question of who holds title to the property has not been resolved. The Committee expresses its deep concern at the seizure, according to the Government under section 599.2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without indication of the specific motive for its approval in the circumstances described. The Committee requests the Government to remove the persons occupying FETRAMIRANDA’s headquarters (Government supporters, according to the CTV) and to guarantee FETRAMIRANDA’s use of the premises until the claim over title to the property is resolved.
8. 1623. With regard to the allegation that, on 8 October 2007, the offices of FETRATRUJILLO were subjected to an unconstitutional seizure and eviction order, issued by a judge (who acted as both sentencer and executor), at the instigation of the national Government, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statements that: (1) since 16 May 2005, members of FETRATRUJILLO have been pursuing, through the civil courts, a claim for constitutional protection of their possession against other individuals; (2) the judge had to determine whether the complainants were the legitimate possessors of the property at the centre of the dispute, whether their possession had lasted more than a year and a day, and whether the legitimate possession claimed by the complainants had been interrupted; (3) the complainants have in no way demonstrated that the property is theirs, because such buildings are simply not the property of any individual, as they belong ipso jure to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, since they are part of the nation’s heritage; they are the property of the nation, over which there is no prescription of rights over time, much less rights of possession, and over which the Venezuelan State has ownership and possession throughout time and space; no damage to the property has been verified; (4) this case proceeded, in accordance with legally established procedure, and during its examination, representatives of FETRATRUJILLO did not present or provide any document to show that any government agency had authorized them to remain on the premises; (5) based on this, on 8 February 2006, the examining judge ordered the immediate reversion of the premises to state ownership, through the appropriate measures, and there was certainly no eviction procedure, as the complainants claim: rather, the legally established procedure was followed; and (6) the parties subsequently appealed and the acting judge of the Higher Court for Civil, Mercantile and Transport Affairs and Minors of the Trujillo state jurisdiction rejected the appeal on 8 October 2007, upholding the final ruling in the interdiction claim for possession that resolved to return the premises to state ownership.
9. 1624. The Committee concludes that the judicial authorities have established that the property housing FETRATRUJILLO’s headquarters belongs to the State and was returned to national ownership. The Committee regrets, however, that the regional authorities have not attempted to assist in finding a provisional or definitive solution to remedy the fact that, as a result, FETRATRUJILLO has been deprived of its trade union headquarters, which it had been using for years, particularly in view of the complainant’s statement that the building is now falling into disrepair.
10. 1625. With regard to the allegations that the FUTDF and FETRACARABOBO have also been evicted from their offices, the Committee takes note of the Government’s statements that: (1) the complainants attempted to bring proceedings for constitutional protection in respect of the alleged occupation of premises to which they claim title; (2) in the face of these proceedings, the Carabobo State Government and the Valencia town hall provided documents granting right of title to the premises in question; (3) according to the ruling, there is no document granting property title for the premises in question to this trade union federation; (4) the judicial authority that examined the constitutional protection claim ruled that there had been ordinary proceedings of sufficient brevity and effectiveness to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim (i.e. the restitution of property); it therefore ruled that the constitutional protection claim was inadmissible, as it fell within the criteria for inadmissibility set out in the Organic Act on Protection for Rights and Constitutional Guarantees; (5) it is well established in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that, in the case of eviction from or seizure of premises, the appropriate prompt, summary and effective ordinary process which the alleged injured parties should invoke is a possession interdiction; and (6) in these circumstances, the Third Court of First Instance for Civil, Mercantile, Agrarian and Banking Affairs of the Carabobo state jurisdiction ruled, on 25 April 2005, that the above constitutional protection claim was inadmissible.
11. 1626. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Carabobo State Government and the Valencia town hall provided documents granting their right of title to the premises housing FETRACARABOBO’s offices and apparently the offices of the FUTDF. The Committee once more regrets that the authorities have not attempted to assist in finding a provisional or definitive solution to remedy the fact that, as a result, FETRACARABOBO and the FUTDF have been deprived of the union offices that they had been using for years.
12. 1627. In general, the Committee can only highlight the fact that, in this and other cases, the CTV and its trade union federations have been the subject of actions or omissions by the authorities intended to harass or damage them, whether it be by refusing to bargain collectively with them, in some cases, or, in others, by depriving them of their offices after many years without exploring other alternatives. The Committee expresses its deep concern at the fact that the Government, in its most recent communication received shortly before the Committee’s session, justifies the eviction of FETRATRUJILLO, FETRAMIRANDA and FETRAMERIDA from their headquarters by a presumed elimination of “hideous inequalities” among the existing workers’ organizations.
13. 1628. The Committee must underline the fact that the spirit of Convention No. 87 calls for impartial treatment of all trade union organizations by the authorities, even if they criticize the social or economic policies of national or regional executives, as well as avoidance of reprisals for pursuing legitimate trade union activities.