Allegations: The complainant organizations allege anti-union dismissals and acts
of persecution against striking workers by the Prosegur Paraguay, SA enterprise, as well as
the refusal by the enterprise to negotiate a collective agreement on conditions of
work
- 438. The Committee examined this case at its March 2014 meeting, when it
presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 371st Report, paras 655–669,
approved by the Governing Body at its 320th Session (March 2014)].
- 439. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 19
June 2014.
- 440. Paraguay 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. Previous examination of the case
A. Previous examination of the case- 441. In its previous examination of the case in March 2014, the Committee
made the following recommendations [see 371st Report, para. 669]:
- (a) The Committee requests the Government to take urgent steps to
ensure that an investigation is conducted without delay into all the allegations
made in this case and, if these are found to be true, that the necessary remedy
measures are taken. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in
this regard.
- (b) Recalling that measures should be taken
to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for
voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’
organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment
by means of collective agreements, the Committee requests the Government to do
everything in its power to promote collective bargaining between the parties. The
Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this
regard.
- 442. The complainants’ allegations referred to in recommendation (a) are
reproduced below [see 371st Report, paras 658– 661]:
- – In their
communication of 31 October 2012, SITEPROPASA and UNI Global Union report that, on
25 September 2011, a meeting of the constituent assembly of the trade union was
called, at which the procedures for registering the trade union with the
administrative labour authority were initiated. On 26 September, the trade union was
registered in accordance with Resolution No. 62/2011 of the Office of the Deputy
Minister for Labour of Paraguay. The enterprise Prosegur Paraguay, SA was informed
of this by telegram. The complainants allege that once the enterprise had been
informed of the establishment of the trade union, it dismissed the following
workers, who it identified as promoters and organizers within the trade union: Mr
Víctor Fretes, Mr Pío Antonio Hermoza, Mr Carlos Denis and Mr Esteban González, the
press and public relations secretary. The complainants state that it was not
possible to bring a case before the courts requesting their reinstatement, as they
did not possess reliable documentation to corroborate their status as union
organizers.
- – The complainants add that, on 23 December
2011, the trade union informed the employer of its intention to promote the
negotiation of a collective agreement on working conditions and submitted a draft
that had been approved by the assembly of the trade union. According to the
complainants, the enterprise employed delaying tactics and the trade union turned to
the administrative authority, requesting it to mediate. They state that, on 2 May
2012, representatives of the enterprise and the trade union signed an initial
agreement establishing a period of two months at the end of which both parties would
sign the collective agreement on working conditions, once the negotiations were
complete. The complainant organizations allege that, once the period of two months
had elapsed, the agreement was never signed owing to the enterprise’s unwillingness
to continue with the negotiations.
- – The complainants
allege that, during the negotiating process, the following trade union members were
dismissed: Mr Antonio Robledo, Mr Hermenegildo Areco, Mr Víctor Martínez, Mr
Heriberto Ortiz and Mr Alfredo Ramírez. The complainants state that, in this
context, the workers who were members of SITEPROPASA, satisfying all the legal
requirements, decided to hold an eight-day strike from 18 to 26 July 2012 (the
strike was extended to 4 August 2012). The complainants allege that the enterprise
carried out acts of persecution and intimidation against the workers from the
beginning of the strike. In particular, they state that several trade union leaders
and members received telephone calls at home from employees of the enterprise, who
informed their families that any worker who participated in the strike would be
dismissed and would no longer be able to support their family. Furthermore, they
allege that law enforcement officers were present at the picket line and marches, in
order to intimidate the strikers.
- – The complainants add
that the enterprise recruited new workers during the strike, which was confirmed by
the administrative labour authority. They indicate that, during the strike, a
tripartite meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour, which was attended by the
Minister for Labour herself and at which the workers were requested and advised to
end their protest action. According to the complainants, the highest authorities of
the Ministry undertook to continue mediating between the parties and to guarantee
that the workers would not suffer reprisals. However, the complainants allege that
from that moment the authorities abandoned the workers who were members of the trade
union to their fate. The complainants state that the workers decided to end the
strike on 27 July 2012 and that, when they returned to work on 30 July, they were
summoned individually by the enterprise and, in the absence of an adviser or legal
representative, were informed of the enterprise’s intention to have the strike
declared unlawful (the enterprise submitted a request to the Fourth Circuit Labour
Court of First Instance of the city of Asunción to that end), which would result in
them being dismissed without pay. The complainants add that, in this context, the
workers were pressured into signing an agreement that would terminate their
employment contracts and which established the compensation to be paid, the notice
period and other particulars, as if it were an unjustified dismissal or a justified
withdrawal from service. The complainants allege that, in this way, the enterprise
succeeded in dismissing 230 trade union members, and that those workers who had
refused to sign the letters terminating their employment relationship were
dismissed. The complainants state that it is worth noting that the enterprise
subsequently withdrew on 20 August 2012 its request to have the strike declared
unlawful. According to the complainants, a number of trade union leaders accepted
compensation as “an agreement to terminate their employment relationship by mutual
consent”, which many only accepted after having been subjected to undue pressure.
The complainants also allege that, when those dismissed workers seek employment in
other enterprises in the sector, to their surprise, and despite meeting all the
necessary criteria, they are informed that they cannot be hired because Prosegur
Paraguay, SA has published a list containing the names of the striking
workers.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 443. In a communication dated 19 June 2014, the Government sent its
observations, including the reports and decisions of the labour administrative
authority, as well as the comments of the Prosegur Paraguay, SA enterprise on the
allegations made by the complainants. The documents submitted relate to the following
matters: the registration of the Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Prosegur
Paraguay, SA (including Resolution No. 62 of 5 October 2011 and Resolution No. 1068 of
20 September 2012, Opinion No. 2320/11 of 30 December 2011 and Opinion No. 2655/11 of 15
November 2011, and the record of 29 November 2011); the dismissal of workers prior to
the conclusion of negotiations (including form No. 2450/05 concerning the complaint of
the failure to provide work made by Mr Heriberto Albino Ortiz and others dated 23 May
2012, the notification papers dated 23 and 25 May 2012, and the minutes of the meeting
held on 29 May 2012 with the acting mediator); the registration of the collective
agreement on conditions of work (CCCT) signed on 26 October 2012 (including Decision No.
1362 of 10 December 2012 and Decision No. 382 of 15 February 2013 issued by the labour
administrative authority, and the text of the collective agreement); the declaration of
17 July 2012 concerning strike action from 18 to 26 July 2012 by the Trade Union of
Workers and Employees of Prosegur Paraguay, SA (SITEPROPASA) (including the text of the
declaration and the minutes of the tripartite meetings held on 17, 18 and 25 July 2012);
the summary administrative procedure for the replacement of the striking workers
(including Decision No. 407/12 of 28 August 2012 and Decision No. 1240/12 of 16 November
2012); and the dismissal of the workers who took part in the strike (including the
response to the reinstatement claim submitted by a number of workers).
- 444. The enterprise considers that the points made in the complaint do
not correspond to the reality of the situation and states that it has respected the
legislation in force, as well as adopting a conciliatory attitude. Moreover, in support
of these statements, it points out that it pays the most competitive wages in the sector
in Paraguay; a collective agreement is in force; and harmonious labour relations are
ensured in the enterprise, the workers enjoying all the rights conferred by the
legislation and the collective agreement. The enterprise also emphasizes that, despite
there being no trade union at the enterprise, the collective agreement was negotiated
and signed by the representatives of almost the entire workforce, who had endorsed their
representative status.
- 445. With regard to the delay in the negotiation of the collective
agreement relating to conditions of work, the Government sent information showing that
the CCCT of 26 October 2012 between Prosegur Paraguay, SA and the representatives of the
workers is in force. This agreement was approved, certified and registered by the labour
administrative authority by means of Decision No. 1362 of 10 December 2012. Further to a
request made by the enterprise dated 21 December 2012, the abovementioned decision was
amended by Decision No. 382 of 15 February 2013 in order to reflect the fact that the
agreement had been signed between the enterprise and representatives of all the
non-unionized workers.
- 446. With regard to the strike held in 2012, the Government sent a copy
of the records of the tripartite meetings held on 17, 18 and 25 July 2012 as a result of
the notification of strike action by SITEPROPASA and the subsequent extension thereof.
The meetings were attended by representatives of the labour administrative authority,
the enterprise and SITEPROPASA, but no consensus was reached. The enterprise indicates
that there had been peaceful negotiations that year with a company trade union with a
view to the adoption of a collective agreement, which was subsequently approved. The
enterprise points out that it had been agreed that the parties would negotiate the terms
of the collective agreement during May and June and that they would sign it, with the
approved provisions, in July. However, instead of signing the final instrument, a
minority of the workers at the office of Prosegur Paraguay, SA (20 per cent) belonging
to the said union announced a strike, on the grounds that the enterprise was supposedly
refusing to sign the collective agreement.
- 447. As regards the replacement of the striking workers, the information
supplied by the Government shows that, in the context of the summary administrative
procedure ordered by the Office of the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Security by
means of Decision No. 407/12 of 28 August 2012, it was not established that services had
been provided during the strike by workers who did not belong to the permanent workforce
of the enterprise. Decision No. 1240 of 16 November 2012 ruled that, since there was
insufficient evidence to warrant the imposition of penalties for alleged infringements
of the labour laws, the summary administrative procedure against the enterprise should
be dismissed.
- 448. As regards the dismissal of the workers who took part in the strike,
the enterprise explains that, on 27 July 2012, the trade union assembly decided to end
the strike and that the workers opted individually to continue their employment
contracts or negotiate the termination thereof with the enterprise. The enterprise adds
that it paid the maximum compensation provided for under the labour legislation to the
175 workers who chose the second option. The contract termination agreements were
settled and formalized the following day, in the presence of notaries and other work
colleagues, according to the order of arrival of the workers. The enterprise states that
it is untrue that legal or union advisers were not permitted to be present during the
formalization of the agreements. Moreover, the information supplied by the Government
includes a report dated 24 April 2014 from the Department for the Registration of
Employers and Workers, in which there is no mention of the dismissal of workers from the
enterprise.
- 449. With regard to the request submitted by the enterprise to the Fourth
Circuit Labour Court of First Instance on 26 July 2012 to have the strike declared
unlawful, the enterprise states that the request was submitted after all the
possibilities for reopening negotiations in relation to the collective agreement had
been exhausted. The enterprise indicates that once the dispute had been settled it
withdrew its request, thereby showing that the dispute was forgotten and that it was
keen to restore harmonious labour relations.
- 450. The enterprise declares that it has not committed any act of
anti-union persecution before, during or after the abovementioned strike, nor has it
engaged in any “blacklisting”, let alone any bribery of officials.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 451. The Committee recalls that the present case is concerned with
allegations that the Prosegur Paraguay, SA enterprise: (1) dismissed four founding
members of the trade union when the enterprise was informed of the establishment
thereof; (2) refused to comply with the initial agreement for negotiating a collective
agreement relating to conditions of work; (3) dismissed five trade union members during
the negotiation process; (4) replaced striking workers and carried out acts of
intimidation against them (the complainants allege that the workers received phone calls
at home informing their families that they would lose their jobs for taking part in the
strike, and that law enforcement officers were present during the picketing and marches
carried out by the strikers); (5) terminated the employment of 230 trade union members
(who accepted compensation) who had taken part in the strike, after informing them that
the strike would be declared unlawful and they would be dismissed without pay; and (6)
sent a list containing the names of the striking workers to other enterprises in the
sector, thereby preventing them from finding employment.
- 452. The Committee notes the observations sent by the Government and the
comments from the enterprise in reply to the complainants’ allegations. In particular,
the Committee takes note of the documents submitted in relation to: the registration of
the Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Prosegur Paraguay, SA (SITEPROPASA); the
dismissal of workers prior to the conclusion of negotiations; the registration of the
collective agreement on conditions of work (CCCT) signed on 26 October 2012; the
declaration of 17 July 2012 concerning strike action from 18 to 26 July 2012 by
SITEPROPASA; the summary administrative procedure for the replacement of the striking
workers; and the dismissal of the workers who took part in the strike.
- 453. The Committee observes, with regret, that the Government’s reply
does not address the allegations made concerning the dismissal of four founding members
of the trade union when the enterprise was informed of its establishment. The Committee
therefore firmly urges the Government once again to provide information on the urgent
steps that it requested the Government to take to ensure that an investigation is
conducted into the allegations of dismissal and, if these prove to be true, that the
necessary remedial measures are taken.
- 454. As regards the alleged dismissals of Mr Antonio Robledo, Mr
Hermenegildo Areco, Mr Víctor Martínez, Mr Heriberto Ortiz and Mr Alfredo Ramírez during
the negotiations for the collective agreement on conditions of work, the Committee
observes that, even though the Government does not address the allegations made, the
documents that it sent contain references to the complaint of the failure to provide
work made on 23 May 2012 by Mr Heriberto Ortiz and others. The Committee further
observes that, in the record of the meeting of 17 July 2012 (3 p.m.) between
representatives of the labour administrative authority, the National Confederation of
Workers (CONAT) and SITEPROPASA, at which no representative of the enterprise was
present, it is noted that “… while the negotiations for the CCCT were still in progress,
a number of workers were dismissed, including Mr Antonio Robledo, Mr Hermenegildo Areco,
Mr Víctor Martínez, Mr Heriberto Ortiz and Mr Alfredo Ramírez; it was requested that
they be reinstated once the required procedures had been completed …”. The Committee
requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the administrative
procedure referred to above and to send a copy of any decision taken.
- 455. As regards recommendation (b) in the previous examination of the
case, and more specifically the delays in collective bargaining with the trade union
SITEPROPASA since September 2011, the Committee notes that, according to the information
supplied by the Government, the CCCT in force is the one that was signed on 26 October
2012 between the enterprise and the representatives of the workers, was approved,
certified and registered by the labour administrative authority by means of Decision No.
1362 of 10 December 2012, and was subsequently amended by Decision No. 382 of 15
February 2013 in order to reflect the fact that the CCCT had been signed between the
enterprise and representatives of all the non-unionized workers. The Committee observes
that the complainants’ allegation is not concerned with the collective agreement signed
with representatives of the workers but with the fact that the enterprise had been
previously negotiating with SITEPROPASA. In a request from the enterprise dated 21
December 2012, relating to an administrative decision (No. 1362 of 10 December 2012),
which is included in the documents sent by the Government, it is stated that “… the
representatives of the workers were appointed by an official letter dated 26 October
2012, in accordance with sections 326 and 327 and related provisions of the Labour Code;
moreover, other workers on other dates endorsed the actions of the representatives
through documents that were attached to this file …”. The Committee also observes that
these (non-union) representatives were appointed after the end of the strike and the
series of dismissals alleged by the complainants. The Committee wishes to recall that
the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91), provides that: “For the purpose
of this Recommendation, the term “collective agreements” means all agreements in writing
regarding working conditions and terms of employment concluded between an employer, a
group of employers or one or more employers’ organisations, on the one hand, and one or
more representatives workers’ organisations, or in the absence of such organisations,
the representatives of the workers duly elected and authorised by them, in accordance
with national laws and regulations, on the other.” In this respect, the Committee has
emphasized that the said Recommendation stresses the role of workers’ organizations as
one of the parties in collective bargaining. Direct negotiation between the undertaking
and its employees, by-passing representative organizations where these exist, might in
certain cases be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and
organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted. [See Digest of decisions and
principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para.
945].
- 456. With regard to the replacement of the striking workers, the
Committee notes that, according to the Government’s information, in the context of the
summary administrative procedure ordered by the Office of the Deputy Minister of Labour
and Social Security, it was not established that services had been provided during the
strike by workers who did not belong to the permanent workforce of the enterprise, and
hence it was decided to dismiss the procedure against the enterprise. This being the
case, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
- 457. As regards the alleged termination of the employment contracts of
230 workers who took part in the strike, the Committee notes the enterprise’s statement
that on 27 July 2012 the trade union assembly decided to end the strike and that the
workers opted individually to continue their employment contracts or negotiate the
termination thereof with the enterprise; 175 workers (not 230 as alleged in the
complaint) chose the second option (according to the enterprise, the termination of
employment agreements were settled and formalized the following day, in the presence of
notaries and other work colleagues; moreover, the enterprise denies that legal or union
advisers were not permitted to be present during the formalization of the agreements).
The Committee observes that the documents sent by the Government include the response to
a court action for reinstatement brought by a number of workers (Mr Mario Arturo
Lomaquiz Godoy and others), alleging deceit or extortion on the part of the enterprise.
The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these
proceedings and to send a copy of any ruling issued.
- 458. In this respect, as regards the alleged acts of persecution against
the striking workers, the Committee notes the enterprise’s statement that it has not
committed any act of anti-union persecution or engaged in any “blacklisting”. The
Committee urges the Government to carry out an administrative investigation into these
allegations without delay, and, in the event that acts of anti-union discrimination have
occurred, to impose the sanctions provided by legislation.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 459. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee
observes with regret that the Government’s reply does not address the allegations
made concerning the dismissal of four founding members of the trade union when the
Prosegur Paraguay, SA enterprise was informed of the establishment thereof. The
Committee therefore firmly urges the Government once again to keep it informed of
the urgent steps that it requested the Government to take to ensure that an
investigation is conducted into the allegations of dismissal and, if these prove to
be true, that the necessary remedial measures are taken.
- (b) With regard to
the alleged dismissals of five trade union members during the negotiations for the
collective agreement on conditions of work, the Committee requests the Government to
keep it informed of the outcome of the administrative procedure referred to above
and to send a copy of any decision taken.
- (c) With regard to the alleged
termination of the employment contracts of 230 workers who took part in the strike,
the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of these
judicial proceedings (the court action brought by Mr Mario Arturo Lomaquiz Godoy and
others) and to send a copy of any ruling issued.
- (d) The Committee also
urges the Government to carry out an administrative investigation into the
allegations of persecutions against striking workers without delay and, in the event
that acts of anti-union discrimination have occurred, to impose the sanctions
provided by legislation.