Rapport définitif - Rapport No. 372, Juin 2014

1. 231. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Union of Workers of the Ministry of Finance (SITRAMHA) dated 10 December 2012.
2. 232. In view of the Government’s lack of response despite the time elapsed since the submission of the complaint, at its March 2014 meeting [see 371st Report, para. 6] the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government and brought to its attention that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting even if it had not received the information or observations from the Government in due time. To date, no response has been received from the Government.
3. 233. El Salvador 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), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 234. In its communication dated 10 December 2012, SITRAMHA alleges that on 25 July 2011, at an extraordinary meeting of its general assembly, the union authorized a nationwide work stoppage for the whole of the Ministry of Finance from 26 to 29 June and from 2 to 3 July 2011. The complainant adds that on 1, 2 and 3 July 2012, the President of El Salvador made threats on television through statements made in the press (the complainant provided newspaper clippings, articles and a DVD) to conduct large-scale dismissals of the participants in the work stoppage – 90 per cent of the 2,900 employees of the Ministry of Finance.
2. 235. SITRAMHA adds that, on 3 July 2012, an announcement of a job fair was published, in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour, with a view to replacing the Ministry of Finance staff who were supporting the work stoppage.
3. 236. On 4, 5 and 6 July, many people came to the offices of the Ministry of Labour of El Salvador aspiring to be part of the large-scale recruitment by the Ministry of Finance to replace the employees participating in the work stoppage.
4. 237. The complainant sends a certified copy of the national newspaper wherein it is stated that, on 5 July 2012, the Legislative Assembly approved a decree entitled “Special temporary arrangements for foreign trade operations for a period of 30 days”, authorizing a contingency plan prepared by the Directorate General of Customs of the Ministry of Finance during the work stoppage. The draft decree was submitted to the President’s office and provided for the mass dismissal of the workers who participated in the stoppage. However, in the final version of the decree of the same name (Decree No. 56), which was approved by the Legislative Assembly on 5 July 2012, the articles which threatened the job security of the Ministry of Finance workers who participated in the work stoppage were removed.
5. 238. Lastly, SITRAMHA states that it is presenting the complaint in order to prevent acts which pose a threat to the union members and freedom of association from being contemplated in the future.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 239. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has not provided the information requested, although being invited to do so by means of an urgent appeal at the Committee’s March 2014 meeting. The Committee requests the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 240. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information which it had expected to receive from the Government.
3. 241. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, while the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments will in turn recognize the importance of formulating, for the purposes of an objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them.
4. 242. The Committee observes that in the present case the complainant alleges that, after a nationwide work stoppage was declared and carried out at all workplaces of the Ministry of Finance from 26 to 29 June and 2 to 3 July 2011, the President of El Salvador made statements to the media threatening mass dismissals of the participants. According to the allegations, the authorities published an advertisement for a job fair with a view to replacing the participants in the work stoppage en masse and the Legislative Assembly prepared a draft decree which provided for the mass dismissal of the said workers, which was submitted to the President’s office; ultimately, however, those articles in the draft which threatened the job security of the workers in question were removed from the legislative decree (No. 56) approved by the Legislative Assembly.
5. 243. The Committee notes that the complainant states that its intention is to prevent acts such as those described in the complaint from happening in the future.
6. 244. The Committee recalls generally the principle that dismissals of strikers on a large scale involve a serious risk of abuse and place freedom of association in grave jeopardy; the competent authorities should be given appropriate instructions so as to obviate the dangers to freedom of association that such dismissals involve [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 674] and that dismissal threats for undertaking trade union activities constitute serious acts contrary to freedom of association principles. The Committee observes nonetheless that the complaint shows that the threatened large-scale dismissal of strikers did not in fact materialize.