Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 127. At its June 2010 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on issues that had remained pending concerning the Single Organized National Trade Union of Workers of the Judiciary (SUONTRAJ) [see the 357th Report, para. 1265]:
- – The Committee invites the complainant organization to supply additional information with respect: (1) to its allegations concerning the systematic outsourcing of work in the Judiciary, disguised labour relations and recruitment on a fee basis in violation of the collective agreement; and (2) its allegations relating to the restriction of the right of trade union members to take time off to carry out trade union activities.
- – The Committee requests the Government to explain for what purpose report No. 138 of 14 July 2009 was drawn up identifying persons attending the meeting organized by the complainant organization, which according to the latter was possibly intended to enable action to be taken that would be prejudicial for the participants.
- – The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary steps to have the nine union officials cited in the complaint reinstated in their jobs and to respect the principles referred to in the conclusions with regard to anti-union discrimination and the restructuring process.
- 128. In its communication of 21 February 2011, referring to the dismissal of the nine trade union officials, the Government states that the authorities have handed down rulings in favour of Mr Marcano and Mr Freites, ordering their reinstatement at work and payment of wage arrears. The Government adds that the other workers mentioned in the complaint have not filed any complaints with the Labour Inspectorate.
- 129. The Committee notes the Government’s information concerning the dismissed trade union officials and notes with interest the reinstatement at work of two of them. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has not provided the information requested on report No. 138 and therefore once again requests the Government to explain for what purpose report No. 138 of 14 July 2009 was drawn up identifying persons attending the meeting organized by the complainant organization, which according to the latter was possibly intended to enable action to be taken that would be prejudicial for the participants.
- 130. Finally the Committee notes with regret that the complainant organization SUONTRAJ has not submitted the information that it had requested at its June 2010 meeting. The Committee informs SUONTRAJ that if it does not receive the requested information before its next meeting, it will not pursue the examination of these allegations.
