Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 404, Octobre 2023

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 30. The Committee last examined this case, which concerned allegations of violation of collective agreements in force between SINALTRACAF and Comfenalco Tolima Family Compensation Fund (the Fund) regarding union leave, wage increases, meetings of Labour Relations Committee and automated deduction of union dues at its November 2011 meeting [see 362nd Report, paras 471–500]. On that occasion, the Committee had noted that there was an internal dispute within SINALTRACAF which had been referred to the judicial authority, with a view to ascertaining which of the two union executive committees was legally constituted and had expressed the expectation that the courts rule on the case without delay in order to allow the union to function effectively and be able to begin negotiations with a view to renewing the expired collective agreement. The Committee further requested the Government to send its observations regarding the alleged disciplinary proceedings against union officials for using the trade union leave allowed under the collective agreement in force and the unwarranted withholding of union dues through a court order.
2. 31. The Committee notes that in a communication dated May 2013, the Government submitted a copy of the ruling dated 12 December 2012 concerning the dispute within SINALTRACAF, in which the High Court of the district of Ibagué had found that none of the parties could establish its claims with regard to the status of any of the two union executive committees and its capacity to represent workers. Regarding the alleged disciplinary proceedings against union officials for using leave allowed under the collective agreement, the Government transmitted information submitted by the employer, indicating that the latter had suspended union leave pending the judicial proceedings concerning the internal SINALTRACAF dispute, and had opened disciplinary proceedings against those workers who had taken time off despite the employer’s disagreement. The employer added, however, that all these proceedings were subsequently closed, and no sanction was taken against any union official in this regard. Finally, concerning the withholding of union dues, the Government and the employer indicated that the funds had been deposited in judicial deposit accounts in accordance with a judicial order and their release was also a matter for judicial decision.
3. 32. Noting the information submitted by the Government, the Committee observes that it appears that for a certain period, an internal union dispute had disrupted the interactions between the employer and the union, and that during this time, the employer had taken provisional measures such as suspension of union leave and depositing of union dues in a judicial deposit account. It further notes that the information submitted does not highlight specific acts of interference on the part of the employer or the Government in the said internal union dispute. The Committee recalls in this regard that it is not competent to make recommendations on internal dissensions within a trade union organization, so long as the government does not intervene in a manner which might affect the exercise of trade union rights and the normal functioning of an organization [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1613]. In view of the foregoing, the time elapsed since the occurrence of the facts, and the fact that it has not received any further information from the complainants, the Committee considers this case closed and will not pursue its examination.