Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 403, Juin 2023

1. 184. The complaint is contained in a communication of 30 October 2020 from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT).
2. 185. The Government of Colombia sent its observations on the allegations in a communication of August 2021.
3. 186. 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).

The complainant’s allegations

1. 187. The complainant organization alleges that the National Union of Workers of Gaseosas Lux S.A. (SINALTRALUX) has been subjected to a series of anti-union acts by the enterprise Gaseosas Lux S.A.S. (hereinafter the enterprise), which led to its judicial dissolution in 2018. The complainant organization states in particular that: (i) SINALTRALUX is a first-level and enterprise trade union that was established in 1959; (ii) the trade union and the enterprise concluded a collective agreement on 24 April 2007 for the period 2007–12; (iii) the collective agreement has been duly updated, in accordance with the provisions of sections 476 and 478 of Colombia’s Substantive Labour Code.
2. 188. The complainant organization states that, in July 2015, the enterprise initiated a procedure to dissolve and liquidate the trade union and to cancel its inclusion in the trade union register through legal proceedings before Labour Court 35 of the Bogotá Circuit, claiming that the “withdrawal of members” had reduced the trade union’s membership to fewer than 25, “until finally there were no members left in the trade union in question”. The organization claims that the reduction in membership was not a consequence of voluntary withdrawals but rather the result of the mass dismissal of workers who were members of the trade union or of its executive board, including the president of SINALTRALUX, Julio César Acero Palacios.
3. 189. The complainant organization states that, in both the first and the second instances (decision of Labour Court 35 of the Bogotá Circuit of 17 June 2016 and ruling of the Bogotá High Court of 28 October 2016), the courts rejected the application for the dissolution of the trade union and confirmed that the collective agreement signed by the trade union and the enterprise in 2007 was applicable.
4. 190. The complainant organization adds that, as a result of the enterprise’s failure to accept the trade union and in view of the legal proceedings and complaints brought in this regard, on 8 October 2015, a representative of the enterprise, representatives of UNISINTRAGAL (another trade union present in the enterprise), representatives of the national social partners, a representative of the Ministry of Labour and a representative of the ILO met in the framework of the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts Referred to the ILO (CETCOIT) and an agreement was signed, in which the parties undertook to establish a permanent dialogue in which the CETCOIT would act as observer and mediator. Under the agreement, the Ministry of Labour also agreed to carry out a detailed study into the legal status of SINALTRALUX.
5. 191. The complainant organization claims that, despite the above-mentioned dialogue process, the enterprise continued to deny the trade union’s existence and to refuse to apply the collective agreement (in particular article 143, which provides that the enterprise will conduct its permanent operations with 40 unionized workers on indefinite contracts and 80 workers on fixed-term contracts) and carried out further acts in violation of trade union rights and the trade union’s statutes. It states that, in view of this situation, administrative and legal proceedings were initiated as follows: (i) in 2016, complaints were filed with the Ministry of Labour for violation of freedom of association and discrimination; and (ii) on 31 January 2017, an action was lodged for the protection of constitutional rights (tutela) for violation of freedom of association.
6. 192. The complainant organization states in this respect that Municipal Small Claims Labour Court 11 of Bogotá, which was designated to examine the tutela action, found in favour of the trade union as follows: its decision was “to protect the fundamental rights of SINTRALUX to freedom of association and to due process which have been violated by the enterprise and to require the enterprise concerned to cease immediately the discriminatory acts and omissions against the members of the trade union and any persons affiliated to it”. The complainant organization states that this decision was upheld in the second instance by Labour Court 5 of the Bogotá Circuit.
7. 193. The complainant organization then refers to the events since 2017 leading to the judicial dissolution of the trade union. It states in this regard that: (i) the last main executive board of SINALTRALUX was registered and the registration documents deposited (Certificate No. JD-070) on 1 September 2017 and was composed as follows: Julio César Acero Palacios (President); Yefinson Gill Gutiérrez (Vice-President); Leonardo Rodriguez Ruiz (General Secretary); Reinel Ernesto Castillo Torres (Treasurer); Jhon Fair Prado Cajamarca (Adviser); Edison Fabian Sanabria Yafia (First Deputy); Manuel Fernando García Aya (Second Deputy); Juan Carlos Bustos Rozo (Third Deputy); Gelman Trujillo Rojas (Fourth Deputy); and Mauricio Moreno Norato (Fifth Deputy); (ii) despite the fact that, because of previous dismissals, SINALTRALUX had fewer than 40 members at the beginning of 2017 and that, according to the collective agreement, those members should have had indefinite contracts, the enterprise laid off most of the trade union’s members upon the expiry of their fixed-term contracts; (iii) the enterprise forced the trade union to appoint a new vice-president, who sided with the enterprise, preventing any new members from joining the trade union and facilitating, in exchange for compensation, the resignation of the last members so that the requirements necessary to request the judicial dissolution of the trade union were met; (iv) on 9 November 2017, the enterprise filed another application to the courts, this time in the municipality of Funza, to dissolve the trade union on the grounds that it did not have at least 25 members, which is the minimum required by national law to establish a trade union and is grounds for dissolution under the Substantive Labour Code; and (v) on 13 February 2018, the Civil Circuit Court of Funza ordered the dissolution of the trade union on that grounds that it had fewer than 25 members.
8. 194. The complainant organization claims that the president of the trade union, Julián César Acero Palacios, and the other active trade union members were never informed about the aforementioned dissolution procedure, which is why the president was able to submit a response to the application only on 8 May 2018, after the decision had been handed down. For this reason, on 14 August 2018, the trade union filed a complaint for fraud with the Funza Public Prosecutor’s Office.
9. 195. The complainant organization then refers to the employment situation of Julián César Acero Palacios, president of SINALTRALUX. It states in this regard that: (i) following his dismissal, Mr Acero Palacios filed a petition for reinstatement on the grounds that his trade union immunity had been violated; (ii) on 23 April 2018, Labour Court 20 of the Bogotá Circuit declared that the complainant was covered by the 2007–12 collective agreement and, therefore, by virtue of article 143 thereof, he benefited from an indefinite employment contract and, accordingly, the enterprise was ordered to reinstate the worker and to pay him the wages owed; (iii) this decision was later upheld by the Bogotá High Court; (iv) the tutela action brought by the enterprise against the aforementioned court decisions was rejected by the Labour Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court; (v) in the light of the above, the enterprise was obliged to reinstate the president of the trade union on 11 August 2018 at 9.15 a.m.; and (vi) however, at 9.23 a.m. that day, Mr Acero Palacios received another letter terminating his contract.
10. 196. The complainant organization then refers to another criminal complaint filed by the trade union against the enterprise for procedural fraud and for having acted in bad faith in the sale of the trade union’s headquarters in 2011, in that the funds received were not recorded in the trade union’s account and the sale was made without prior authorization from the assembly with the complicity of a former president of the union, Manuel Alberto Casallas, who is alleged to have personally benefited from this transaction.
11. 197. The complainant organization also refers to the request made to the Office of the Attorney-General to follow up on all the claims and complaints filed with the Ministry of Labour. It states in this regard that: (i) as a result of this request, a working group was set up in which the Ministry of Labour undertook to put in place the measures necessary for the prevention, monitoring and control of the cases and to report on them; (ii) after several requests and three years after the initial claims and complaints were filed, the Ministry of Labour issued a report on the investigations carried out into the situation of three workers for alleged non-compliance with occupational safety and health regulations. The complainant organization regrets the delays by the Ministry of Labour in examining the different claims and complaints.
12. 198. Regarding the efforts by SINALTRALUX to secure the involvement of the CETCOIT in settling the present case, the complainant organization states that this body reported in November 2019 that it could examine cases only if there was a willingness on both sides to settle the dispute through dialogue, which is why it was not competent to examine the subject matter of the case in question.
13. 199. In sum, the complainant organization claims that the enterprise: (i) even before the court’s decision to dissolve the trade union, refused to deduct the union dues of the workers who were members of SINALTRALUX; (ii) refused to implement the collective agreement signed in 2007; (iii) ordered the mass dismissal of union members and officials so that the union’s membership would fall below the threshold of 25 members, thereby also violating the clause in the collective agreement concerning the indefinite duration of these employment contracts; and (iv) arranged with the few remaining members for the union to disappear, by preventing any new members from joining it, facilitating in exchange for compensation the resignation of the last remaining members, and fraudulently requesting the judicial dissolution of the union. The complainant organization notes with regret that the different administrative and judicial procedures that were taken were not able to prevent the dissolution of the union as a result of the anti-union acts carried out by the enterprise and the dismissal of most of its members. In the light of the above, the complainant organization asks first for the reinstatement of all the union officials and members who were dismissed without just cause, or at least for them to receive compensation, and, second, for the return of the union’s property that was fraudulently disposed of through an illegal sale in 2011.

The Government’s reply

1. 200. The Government sent its response to the present complaint in a communication of August 2021. The Government refers first to a series of events, presented in chronological order: (i) SINALTRALUX is a first-level trade union that was established in 1959; (ii) in 2011, the members of the union decided to dissolve and liquidate the union in question; (iii) in 2012, the enterprise denounced the last collective agreement, which had been signed with SINALTRALUX in 2007; (iv) in 2015, the enterprise filed an application to the courts for the dissolution of the union, considering that it had fewer than 25 members; (v) in both the first and the second instances, the courts rejected the application for the dissolution of the union and ordered the employer to apply the collective agreement signed with the union in 2007; (vi) on 31 January 2017, the union filed a tutela action for failure to apply the collective agreement, obtaining decisions in its favour in both the first and the second instances; (vii) on 1 September 2017, the Ministry of Labour registered the union’s new executive board, the president of which was Julio César Acero Palacios; (viii) the same year, the enterprise filed another application to the courts for the dissolution of the union on the grounds that it had fewer than 25 members; (ix) on 13 February 2018, the Civil Court of Funza ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the union on the grounds that it had fewer than 25 members; (x) the president of the union responded belatedly to the legal action, after the court had issued its decision; (xi) on 25 May 2018, the union filed a tutela action against the ruling in question, which was rejected by the Court of the Judicial District of Cundinamarca; (xii) on 4 July 2018, the Labour Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld that court’s decision; and (xiii) on 3 April 2018, the Ministry of Labour ordered the cancellation of the trade union registration of SINALTRALUX.
2. 201. With regard to the complainant organization’s allegations concerning various irregularities associated with the dissolution of the trade union, the Government states that: (i) the procedure to dissolve a trade union owing to insufficient membership requires an executory court order; (ii) according to case law, a reduction in membership that is only temporary and that has subsequently been resolved is not sufficient to justify dissolution; (iii) the complainant organization does not provide any evidence that the reduction in the membership of SINALTRALUX was the result of the mass dismissal by the enterprise of workers who were members of the trade union; and (iv) neither does the complainant organization provide evidence of the alleged failure to notify the union president of the legal action for dissolution, considering that in Colombia it is compulsory to notify the parties personally or to issue a notice of the decisions taken in a procedure or investigation.
3. 202. The Government also provides information on the administrative labour complaints filed by SINALTRALUX. The Government states that, according to the Ministry of Labour’s database, which was consulted on 13 August 2021, there are two ongoing investigations against the enterprise, one concerning trade union rights and the other relating to allegations of non-compliance with occupational safety and health standards, which does not fall within the competence of the Committee on Freedom of Association.
4. 203. The Government then refers to the involvement of the CETCOIT in the dispute between the trade union and the enterprise. The Government states in this respect that: (i) on 13 July 2015, another trade union present in the enterprise, UNISINTRAGAL, established on 17 May 2015, requested the intervention of the CETCOIT in respect of the difficulties encountered since its establishment (allegations of dismissals, pressure to prevent new members from joining and obstacles to collective bargaining); (ii) in the agreement reached on 8 October 2015 in respect of the UNISINTRAGAL case, the parties requested the Ministry of Labour to carry out an analysis of the legal status of SINALTRALUX and to report to the parties in that regard in the framework of the CETCOIT; (iii) at the first session to follow up on the agreement of 8 October, which was held on 6 November 2015, the representatives of the enterprise expressed reservations about SINALTRALUX, a trade union that had been liquidated on 2 November 2011 and reactivated by retirees who were no longer working in the enterprise and that had a new executive board composed of staff who were not union members; (iv) in view of the reservations expressed by the enterprise, the Ministry of Labour was requested to provide a legal opinion; (iv) in its legal opinion of 7 January 2016, the Ministry of Labour stated that an employer cannot be requested to apply the collective agreement of a liquidated trade union to new workers; nevertheless, workers have the right to organize, which means that they can set up a new union and present a new list of demands; (vi) in a second follow-up session held on 7 March 2017, which focused on the concerns of UNISINTRAGAL, UNISINTRAGAL stated that the right to freedom of association continued to be violated, even though in certain respects the labour relationship had improved since there had been a change of regional human resources manager; UNISINTRAGAL’s concern was that its membership would decrease as a result of the termination of fixed-term employment contracts; (vii) in May 2019, the CGT requested the intervention of the CETCOIT to address the situation of SINALTRALUX, but the CETCOIT, after analysing the file, concluded that the issues fell under the competence of other authorities.
5. 204. With regard to the criminal proceedings filed by SINALTRALUX for fraud in connection with the sale of the union’s premises, the Government submits the information provided on 25 August 2021 by the Office of the Attorney-General, according to which: (i) the investigation in question is under way and is being conducted by the judicial police; and (ii) there are several suspects and once the material evidence mentioned in the last decision is obtained, action will be taken accordingly.
6. 205. With regard to the allegations by the complainant organization concerning the refusal by the enterprise to deduct ordinary union dues, the Government states that: (i) the information provided by the enterprise includes a record of the deductions of union dues applied for 2017 to workers who were members of SINALTRALUX; and (ii) no deductions of union dues have been made since the dissolution of the union was ordered by the court. With regard to the allegation that the collective agreement was not applied to workers who were members of the union, the Government states that: (i) insofar as the trade union in question no longer exists, case law applies, according to which the benefits of the collective agreement continue to be valid for workers who belonged to the union and had an active employment relationship with the enterprise at the time the court decision was issued, as those benefits became part of their employment contracts; however, the situation is not the same for workers recruited after the court decision was issued; (ii) accordingly, it was acknowledged by the court that the collective agreement applied to the president of the union’s executive board, Julio César Acero Palacios; (iii) according to the enterprise, 20 workers who were members of the union at the time of its dissolution are still on its payroll, and three of them are members of the executive board that was registered in 2017; and (iv) the complaint does not include the names of the workers who are allegedly in this situation and who, in claiming recognition of their rights, should apply to the judicial authority in order to settle the matter.
7. 206. Regarding the alleged mass dismissal of workers who were members of the trade union, the Government again states that: (i) there is no evidence that the enterprise did actually commit the act in question and there is no list of the workers allegedly dismissed en masse; (ii) the enterprise maintains that the loss of workers was due to retirements or voluntary departures; (iii) it will be for the court to define the rights and to order the enterprise to pay the wages owed and/or to reinstate the workers, if so decided; (iv) the enterprise sent copies of workers’ letters of resignation, voluntary conciliation agreements signed at the Ministry of Labour and handwritten texts by workers concerning their withdrawal from the union; and (v) in the light of the above, it is not possible to conclude that the enterprise carried out the mass dismissal of its workers and thereby violated the right to freedom of association and the respective ILO Conventions.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 207. The Committee notes that the present case concerns the judicial dissolution of a first-level trade union, based on the reduction in its membership to a number below the minimum required by law, as requested by an enterprise in the beverages sector. The Committee notes that the complainant organization alleges primarily that: (i) the reduction in membership is the result of a long series of anti-union acts carried out by the enterprise, including the fraudulent sale of the union’s premises in 2011, mass dismissals, ploys to prevent new members from joining and a refusal to apply the collective agreement signed with the union in 2007; and (ii) the legal action to dissolve the union gave rise to a series of fraudulent acts that prevented the union from exercising its right to due process. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government states primarily that: (i) the judicial dissolution of the union followed all legal channels and was based on the finding that the union no longer had the minimum number of members required by law; (ii) the complainant organization does not provide any evidence that the judicial dissolution was preceded by mass dismissals or that the union’s right to due process was violated throughout the legal proceedings; and (iii) some of the administrative labour complaints mentioned by the complainant organization did not relate to freedom of association but concerned compliance with occupational safety and health regulations.
2. 208. The Committee notes that the following facts emerge from the information provided by the parties: (i) SINALTRALUX is a first-level trade union that was established in 1959; (ii) in 2012, the enterprise denounced the last collective agreement, which had been signed with the union in 2007; (iii) in 2015, the enterprise filed an application to the courts for the dissolution of the union, considering that it had fewer than 25 members; (iv) in both the first and the second instances, the courts rejected the application for the dissolution of the union and ordered the employer to apply the collective agreement signed with the union in 2007; (v) in 2016, the union filed complaints with the Ministry of Labour for violation of freedom of association and failure to apply the collective agreement, as well as complaints regarding occupational safety and health matters; (vi) on 31 January 2017, the union filed a tutela action for failure to apply the collective agreement, obtaining decisions in its favour in both the first and the second instances; (vii) on 1 September 2017, the Ministry of Labour registered the union’s new executive board, the president of which was Julio César Acero; (viii) the same year, the enterprise filed another application to the courts for the dissolution of the union on the grounds that it had fewer than 25 members; (ix) on 13 February 2018, the Civil Court of Funza ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the union; (x) the president of the union responded belatedly to the legal action, after the court had issued its decision; (xi) the union filed two criminal complaints with the Office of the Attorney-General, one in 2016 concerning alleged fraud in relation to the sale of the union’s premises in 2011 and the other in 2018 concerning alleged fraud in the filing of the legal action for dissolution in 2017; and (xii) the CETCOIT was apprised of the conflict between the enterprise and SINALTRALUX, first in 2015 in the context of a dispute between the enterprise and another union present at the enterprise and again in 2019, with no consensual settlement of the disputes being achieved.
3. 209. As to the facts of the case prior to 2017 (the year in which the second application for judicial dissolution was filed), the Committee notes that it appears from the above and from the many annexes provided by the parties – in particular the texts of several judicial and administrative decisions – that: (i) the union experienced a significant drop in its membership in 2011, a period in which the enterprise experienced a reduction in its workforce (the enterprise submitted to the Government a list of voluntary resignations signed that year by workers who left the enterprise in exchange for severance payments) and the time when the union premises was sold; (ii) the union was reactivated in 2015, which gave rise to disputes with the enterprise not only about the applicability of the collective agreement signed in 2007, but also about the validity of the new memberships registered and about the enterprise’s obligation to apply the corresponding deductions of union dues; (iii) against this backdrop, both parties brought various actions (the enterprise filed the initial legal action for dissolution and the trade union filed administrative labour complaints in 2016 and tutela action the same year for violation of freedom of association); (iv) the various decisions in this regard, issued both by the courts and by the Ministry of Labour, were in favour of the union and, although the authorities did not find evidence of anti-union dismissals, they did find that anti-union acts had taken place, including acts preventing new members from joining the union and acts of anti-union discrimination.
4. 210. With regard to the judicial dissolution of the union on 13 February 2018 and the circumstances leading up to it, the Committee notes, on the one hand, the allegations by the trade union that the dissolution was the result of mass dismissals and that the legal action for dissolution brought on 9 November 2017 was coupled with a number of cases of fraud that prevented the trade union from exercising its right to due process insofar as the president of the trade union, who was not at the enterprise because he had been dismissed, was not notified of the dissolution action, while the vice-president of the trade union allegedly colluded with the enterprise to expedite the dissolution of the union. The Committee further notes that the Government stated that: (i) from the documents provided by the enterprise, it appears that the union had only 20 members at the time it was dissolved and that a significant number of members had voluntarily withdrawn from it; (ii) the complainant organization did not provide any evidence of the mass dismissal of union members or of a failure to provide notification of the judicial dissolution proceedings; and (iii) the tutela action filed against the decision concerning judicial dissolution was dismissed in both the first and the second instances by the Labour Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court.
5. 211. Before examining the specific facts of the case, the Committee wishes to recall that it has already had occasion to examine situations involving the judicial dissolution of trade unions whose membership has fallen below the minimum required by law. In one such case, the Committee considered that a legal provision which requires the dissolution of a trade union if its membership falls below 20 or 40, depending on whether it is a works union or an occupational union, does not in itself constitute an infringement of the exercise of trade union rights, provided that such winding up is attended by all necessary legal guarantees to avoid any possibility of an abusive interpretation of the provision; in other words, the right of appeal to a court of law [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 983]. Furthermore, in a case in which it concluded that the reduction in the number of union members to below the legal minimum of 25 was the consequence of anti-trade union dismissals or threats, the Committee requested the government, should it be concluded that these were anti-trade union dismissals and that the withdrawal from union membership of trade union leaders resulted from pressure or threats from the employer, to impose the penalties provided by the legislation, reinstate the dismissed workers in their jobs and permit the dissolved trade union to be reconstituted [see Compilation, para. 985].
6. 212. With regard to the legislative context of the judicial dissolution being examined in the present case, the Committee notes that judicial dissolution on the grounds of a reduction in membership to fewer than 25 members is covered by section 401 of the Substantive Labour Code, which provides that the applicable process for dissolution shall be that set out in section 380 of the Substantive Labour Code. The Committee notes in this respect that paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) of section 380 provide that: the union, from the time of notification, has a period of five (5) days to respond to the complaint and to submit any evidence deemed relevant; once this period has expired, the court shall issue a decision, taking into account the evidence made available within that period of five (5) days; the court’s decision may be the subject of an appeal, with suspensive effect, before the respective high court of the judicial district, which shall take a final decision within five (5) days of receipt of the case file. No appeal may be lodged against the high court’s decision. The Committee notes that, in its last observation concerning the application of Convention No. 87 by Colombia, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations requested the Government to indicate the reasons that could justify the application of the very short procedural time limits set out in section 380(2) of the Substantive Labour Code.
7. 213. As to the factual context of the court’s decision of February 2018 to dissolve the union, the Committee notes that it appears from the information and annexes provided by the parties that: (i) the enterprise submitted to the Government handwritten letters concerning 20 withdrawals from the trade union dated from 30 July to 2 December 2017; (ii) the complaint and the annexes thereto do not contain specific indications or evidence of the mass dismissal of union members; (iii) it is, however, established that the president of the union, Mr Acero, was dismissed on 1 April 2017 and that his reinstatement, ordered in 2018 by court decisions in both the first and the second instances, led to the issuance by the court of an executive order against the enterprise of 10 December 2018; and (iv) by Decision No. 002193 of 26 June 2019, upheld by Decision No. 000716 of 18 February 2020 in relation to an administrative complaint filed by the trade union in 2016, the Territorial Directorate of Bogotá of the Ministry of Labour imposed a sanction on the enterprise upon “finding the existence of obstacles preventing workers interested in joining the trade union from doing so”.
8. 214. Although it does not have the text of the court decision ordering the dissolution of the trade union, the Committee further notes that it appears from Ruling No. 10112-2018 of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court of 4 July 2018, which dismissed the tutela action brought by the trade union against that decision, that the president of the trade union was not officially notified of the dissolution proceedings because at the time he did not have a relationship with the enterprise as a result of his dismissal, as mentioned in the paragraph above. ’
9. 215. Lastly, the Committee notes that the trade union filed two criminal complaints with the Office of the Attorney-General, one in 2016, concerning alleged fraud in respect of the sale of the union’s premises in 2011 and the other in 2018 concerning alleged fraud in the filing of the judicial proceedings for dissolution in 2017. The Committee notes that the Government reported that the investigations relating to the criminal proceedings of 2016 were ongoing and notes that it has not received any information on the handling of the criminal proceedings initiated in 2018. In the light of the foregoing, and recalling that the dissolution of a trade union is a serious act that must be attended by all the necessary guarantees, the Committee regrets that it is not in a position to verify whether all the background information, in particular the judicial and administrative decisions cited in the present conclusions concerning the situation of compliance with trade union rights within the enterprise, was taken into account by the court that ordered the dissolution of SINALTRALUX. In particular, the Committee regrets that Decision No. 002193 of the Ministry of Labour, which found that there were obstacles to trade union membership, was issued three years after the filing of the corresponding complaint and, therefore, after the court decision declaring the dissolution of the trade union. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the investigations in connection with the criminal proceedings brought by the trade union, and expects these to be concluded as soon as possible. In the event that the investigations identify the existence of fraud against the trade union, the Committee stresses that the rights of the union should be restored; and noting that the Government has not provided its observations on the dismissal of Mr Acero, the president of the trade union, the Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the employment situation of Mr Acero and to ensure that the various judicial decisions ordering his reinstatement have been effectively implemented.
10. 216. In the light of the foregoing and especially in the light of the judicial and administrative decisions determining the existence of violations of trade union rights, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure in the future full respect for freedom of association in the enterprise in question.