Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 374, Mars 2015

1. 258. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 5 June 2012 from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the National Association of Workers of the Saludcoop Group (UNITRACOOP).
2. 259. The Government sent its observations in communications of 20 September 2012 and 7 and 31 October 2014.
3. 260. Colombia 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 Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 261. The complainant organizations allege that the Saludcoop EPS business group (hereinafter “the business group”), which consists of three major Colombian health promotion agencies (Saludcoop, Cafesalud and Cruz Blanca) as well as several private enterprises and solidarity sector agencies, carries out acts of anti-union harassment against members of UNITRACOOP and refuses to negotiate the lists of demands presented by that organization. In this regard, the complainant organizations indicate that: (i) as a result of the financial difficulties experienced by the country’s health promotion agencies as of 2007, the business group became the object of an audit, as of 2010, by the Office of the National Superintendent of Health; (ii) the UNITRACOOP trade union organization was established in May 2011 to address the deterioration of working conditions that had followed the audit procedure and currently represents 70 per cent of the business group’s workers; (iii) the auditor of the business group carried out a series of acts of workplace harassment against numerous UNITRACOOP members; (iv) the auditor of the business group is trying to limit the negotiation of the list of demands exclusively to workers of the Saludcoop EPS agency in an attempt to exclude from the bargaining process the workers of the 70 agencies and enterprises that make up the business group, the management of which is fully under the administrator’s control; and (v) the events mentioned above have led to complaints being filed with the Ministry of Labour and the National Office of the Attorney-General without any significant outcome having been achieved.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 262. In its communications, the Government sends the July 2012 observations of Saludcoop EPS OC, in which the enterprise indicates that: (i) the Saludcoop Group does not exist and legally only Saludcoop EPS OC exists; (ii) all the employment-related decisions of the enterprise, including those relating to appointments and dismissals of employees, have been taken in accordance with the plan of action for the improvement and recovery of the enterprise and with the endorsement of the Office of the Superintendent, and are therefore not acts of anti-union discrimination; (ii) some complaints concerning acts of anti-union harassment have been referred to the Ministry of Labour, without any final decision against the enterprise having been taken to date; and (iii) the enterprise is not refusing to negotiate with UNITRACOOP, as is evidenced by the meetings held in December 2011 at the invitation of the enterprise; rather, its representatives made it clear that they could speak only on behalf of the enterprise and negotiate the terms of employment of its 402 employees.
2. 263. In a communication of 20 September 2012, the Government states that the management of the enterprise and UNITRACOOP officials agreed to bring the dispute before the Special Committee on the Handling of Disputes (CETCOIT) and that, as a result of that dialogue, on 19 September 2012, they signed an agreement that: (i) contained an acknowledgement by the parties that freedom of association can be exercised only in a climate in which fundamental rights, particularly those relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining as established in the Constitution and in the law, are fully respected and guaranteed; and (ii) provided for the creation of an ad hoc committee composed of three representatives of each party in order to reach an understanding between both parties as to the form, terms and methods of negotiating the list of demands presented by the union, taking into account the circumstances and the context of the State’s intervention in the enterprise.
3. 264. In its communications of October 2014, the Government indicates lastly that: (i) as a follow-up to the agreement reached by the parties in the CETCOIT in 2012, the authorities, and in particular the Bogotá Territorial Directorate of the Ministry of Labour, continued in 2014 their efforts to facilitate negotiations between the parties; (ii) the aforementioned efforts resulted in the deposit, on 30 September 2014, of 15 collective agreements signed by UNITRACOOP on the one hand, and Saludcoop EPS OC and related agencies on the other; and (iii) the complaints concerning the possible acts of workplace harassment are before the Ministry of Labour and the National Office of the Attorney-General. In the light of the foregoing and, in particular, the signing of the 15 collective agreements between the enterprise and UNITRACOOP, the Government requests that the Committee does not pursue its examination of this case.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 265. The Committee notes that the present case concerns allegations of acts of anti-union harassment against members of the UNITRACOOP trade union organization by the enterprise Saludcoop EPS OC as well as the enterprise’s refusal to negotiate the lists of demands presented by the trade union organization.
2. 266. With regard to the alleged refusal by the enterprise to negotiate the lists of demands with UNITRACOOP, the Committee notes with satisfaction that, after an initial agreement signed in the CETCOIT in 2012, in which the parties agreed to set up a bipartite committee to agree on the form, terms and methods of negotiating the list of demands, UNITRACOOP on the one hand, and Saludcoop EPS OC and a number of related agencies, on the other, signed 15 collective agreements which were officially deposited on 30 September 2014. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.
3. 267. With regard to the allegations of anti-union harassment, the Committee observes that the complaint does not contain any specific details on the nature and content of the allegations and requests the complainant organizations to provide details in this respect. If such information is not forthcoming, the Committee will not continue with the examination of these allegations. The Committee also takes note of the indications by the complainant organization as well as by the enterprise and the Government that several complaints are before the Ministry of Labour and the National Office of the Attorney-General without any final decision against the enterprise having been taken to date. Noting that more than two years have passed since this complaint was filed, and recalling that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined within the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 817], the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to expedite the resolution of the complaints and to keep it informed of the outcome.