Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 408, Octobre 2024

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

1. 63. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations of obstruction of collective bargaining and acts of anti-union violence in a public hydrocarbon and petrochemical derivatives company, at its October 2014 session [see 373rd Report, paras 547–562]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
   • The Committee regrets the excessive delay of more than five years in the collective bargaining process between the complainant trade union and the enterprise due to the failure of the authorities to carry out the economic budgetary study. The Committee reminds the Government that it is under the obligation to promote collective bargaining and firmly requests it to take the necessary measures without delay so that the parties can begin negotiating a collective agreement, and to keep it informed in that regard.
   • The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal complaint presented to the Office of the Public Prosecutor relating to the alleged acts of violence by the National Guard against workers who, according to the complainant trade union, participated on 5 July 2012 in a peaceful trade union protest on the premises of the enterprise against a number of labour-related irregularities.
2. 64. In a communication dated March 2016, the Union of Workers of Hydrocarbon Derivatives and Related Petrochemicals and Allied Workers in the State of Carabobo points out that although, in 2015, the Labour Inspectorate of Guacara, Carabobo State, informed the union that, in the many meetings it had held with the workers of the company (a public company, manufacturer of construction materials), they had not mentioned the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). According to the complainant, this indication by the Inspectorate does not correspond to reality, since the workers had been discussing the negotiation of a CBA for five years at dialogue tables with the company. The complainant further indicates that this is not a matter for the above-mentioned Inspectorate, but for the Inspectorate of the city of Valencia, as it is the main office and holds the file where the union is registered. The complainant also refers to a notification received in August 2014 in which the company allegedly indicated to the workers that they should not promote or carry out political or trade union demonstrations on the company’s premises or any activity that was against the values, principles and ethics of the company.
3. 65. In communications dated 18 May 2015 and 25 April 2023, and in relation to recommendation (a), concerning the delay in the collective bargaining process due to the failure of the authorities to carry out the economic budgetary study, the Government indicates that: (i) the draft CBA submitted by the complainant union was closed on 15 July 2014 for lack of procedural impetus by the interested parties; (ii) the complainant union has not filed with the labour inspectorate corresponding to its jurisdiction any request for the discussion of any CBA; and (iii) on 12 December 2018, the most representative trade union organizations of the “housing sector”, namely the National Housing Union of the Public Sector, the Sole National Union of Employees, Retirees, and Workers, and the Association of Retirees of the ministry responsible for Habitat and Housing, concluded “collective agreements” that benefit the workers of the company, which are fully complied with.
4. 66. With regard to recommendation (b), the Government indicates that it requested information about the criminal complaint from the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which, after checking with the Directorate for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of the Public Ministry of the Judicial Circumscription of the State of Carabobo, reported that it had not received a complaint about the facts referred to and therefore no investigation had been initiated into them.
5. 67. The Committee notes the elements pointed out by the complainant and by the Government. With regard to the recommendation that the Government take the necessary measures without delay so that the parties can begin negotiating a CBA (recommendation (a)), the Committee notes that the Government indicates that collective bargaining was closed in July 2014 due to a lack of procedural momentum on the part of the parties and that the complainant union did not submit any request for the discussion of a CBA. The Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case, it had taken note of a communication from the Government dated 15 May 2014 according to which the draft CBA had been admitted and was awaiting the mandatory report by the competent body in order to meet the necessary economic condition. The Committee regrets to observe that two months after the aforementioned communication, the negotiation process has been closed without any mention of the submission by the competent authorities of the economic report requested by the trade union in 2009, the existence of which was a condition for the opening of negotiations.
6. 68. With regard to the Government’s indication that “the most representative trade union organizations in the housing sector” negotiated collective agreements benefiting the company’s workers in 2018, the Committee observes that it does not have the text of these agreements or information on the extent to which the existence of such agreements has affected the complainant’s willingness to enter into the negotiation of a CBA with the company. The Committee regrets to observe that, a decade after it examined the case, the above-mentioned elements do not seem to indicate that the Government has taken the necessary measures to enable the parties to start negotiating a collective agreement, as requested by the Committee. Noting that it lacks updated information from the complainant that would enable it to assess from its perspective how this aspect of the case has evolved, the Committee, while reiterating its previous recommendation, will not pursue its examination of this aspect of the case.
7. 69. With regard to recommendation (b), concerning the criminal complaint filed with the Office of the Public Prosecutor for alleged acts of violence by the National Guard against workers during the trade union protest that took place in 2012 on the premises of the enterprise, the Committee notes that the Government states that it has no record of such a complaint and further notes that the complainant did not provide a copy of the complaint or elements that would allow it to be identified. The Committee will therefore not continue its examination of this aspect of the case.
8. 70. Finally, the Committee notes that, in its communication sent in 2016, the complainant encloses a copy of a notification dated 11 August 2014 from the company’s corporate loss prevention and control management which, among other things, indicates to the workers that they should not promote or carry out political and trade union demonstrations on the company’s premises or any activity that is contrary to the values, principles and ethics of the company. The Committee notes that the above-mentioned notification was issued a few weeks after, according to the Government, the negotiation process of the CBA promoted by the trade union had been closed, and observes that in its reply, the Government does not refer to this allegation. The Committee recalls that freedom of association implies not only the right of workers and employers to form freely organizations of their own choosing, but also the right for the organizations themselves to pursue lawful activities for the defence of their occupational interests [see Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 716]. Similarly, the Committee emphasizes that the right to hold meetings is essential for workers’ organizations to be able to pursue their activities and it is for employers and workers’ organizations to agree on the modalities for exercising this right [see Compilation, para. 1585]. In the light of the elements examined in the present case, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that workers in the enterprise can freely exercise their trade union rights. In the absence of communications from the complainants since 2016, the Committee considers that this case is closed and does not call for further examination.