Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95) - Colombia (Ratification: 1963)

1.  Further to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government’s reply in its report to the comments made by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGDT) in April 1999, asking the Government as both an employer and a supervisory body, to respect and enforce the right to payment of wages and the trade union rights of workers in a number of municipalities, which the CGDT cites. The Committee notes the Government’s comments in response to the CGDT’s allegations that wages were improperly withheld or were unpaid. The Government replies that each territorial entity has its own budgetary allocation for the payment of wages, which is approved by the competent authority for a given fiscal period. The Government therefore concludes that in many cases the delay in payment is due to the formalities required for the disbursement and that once the funding is approved the payment is made. With regard to the specific cases referred to by the CGDT, the Government indicates that, in the Hospital San Francisco de Asís in Quibdó, although the employees were on strike the Chocó administrative health department and the unions reached an agreement whereby the manager of the State Social Enterprises (ESE) is to pay all outstanding wages from the efficiency agreement surplus before July 2000. In its reply the Government refers in detail to each of the municipalities mentioned by the CGDT (Ibagué and Arauca) and others which were not mentioned by the CGDT (Putumayo, Sucre, Meta, Quibdó and Caicedonia). However, the Government mentions neither the municipality of Montéria nor the department of Córdoba. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the situation in the various municipalities and departments with regard to the payment of wages, and on the practical measures taken to remedy the non-payment of wages in the public sector referred to by the CGDT.

2.  With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the Government’s response in its report to the comments by the Union of Colombian Textile Workers (SINTRATEXTIL) dated August 1999 concerning the non-payment of wages and the dismissal of unionized workers. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that on 24 November 1999 an agreement of reconciliation was reached on wages between SINTRATEXTIL and the legal representative of the company TEXTILES RIONEGRO, in which the latter undertook to pay the wages outstanding. It also notes that TEXTILES RIONEGRO was fined for withholding two weeks’ wages, 50 per cent of the 1999 end-of-year bonus, the family allowance and the bonus for the period June to December of the year.

3.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the authorities in charge of enforcing the legislation. It notes that Decree No. 1128 of 29 June 1999 restructuring the Ministry of Labour and Social Security provides, in section 17, for the establishment of a labour inspection, supervision and control unit. The unit is responsible for coordinating, developing and evaluating all activities relating to prevention, inspection, supervision and control throughout the national territory. It also has the authority to establish mechanisms, procedures and instruments to ensure that regulatory standards on the individual and collective rights of workers are observed in both the public and the private sectors.

4.  The Committee notes the comments by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR), received in February 2000, concerning non-compliance by the Government with Article 12 (payment of wages at regular intervals), and 11 (bankruptcy or judicial liquidation) of the Convention. UNIMAR mentions in particular that payment of the sailors of the Grancolombia Merchant Fleet, which belongs to the Coffee Producers’ Federation, has been suspended. UNIMAR asserts that the sailors have been deprived of their wages for 30 months and that, despite being fined by the Ministry of Labour, the company has not resumed payment of their wages. It adds that the company intends to go into liquidation, which means that the sailors will lose all possibility of being paid their wages. The Committee notes that, although this comment was sent to the Government in March 2000 for any comments which it deemed relevant, the Government’s report received in October 2000 contains no reply to the issues raised by UNIMAR. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary concrete measures to ensure that the workers referred to by UNIMAR receive their wages at regular intervals in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, and to ensure also that they are treated as privileged creditors in the event of the judicial liquidation of the company, pursuant to Article 11.

5.  The Committee also notes the new comments by the Union of Maritime and River Transport Industry Workers (UNIMAR), received in June 2000, concerning Article 11 (bankruptcy or judicial liquidation) of the Convention, asserting that the liquidation plan for the Grancolombia Merchant Fleet is in breach of section 157, superseded by section 36, of Act No. 50 of 1990 concerning the order of priority of credits for wages, social benefits and workers’ compensation. UNIMAR states that, under the said liquidation plan, the privileged creditors, such as workers and pensioners, are relegated to second place. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the practical measures taken to give effect to this provision of the Convention, and more specifically to state where, in the order of priority of privileged credits, wages rank in relation to the other privileged credits.

6.  The Committee notes the comments by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the Yumbo subdivision of the National Union of Chemical Industry Workers of Colombia (SINTRAQUIM), sent to the Government in July 2000, alleging non-observance of Article 12, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The above organizations state that American Home Products International, the parent company of the multinational Whitehall Robins Laboratories Ltd., had decided to close down production in the Yumbo and Bogotá plants owing to their high cost and to transfer them to Mexico. It therefore proposed to the workers that they come to a "voluntary agreement" to terminate their contracts, offering them 100 per cent compensation and assuring them that it had the support of the Ministry of Labour. The organizations add that the workers were pressured to accept the transfer: if they refused, they would be dismissed without compensation. The Committee observes that in its report of October 2000 the Government makes no reference to these comments. The Committee reminds the Government that according to this Article of the Convention, "wages shall be paid regularly" and "upon the termination of a contract of employment, a final settlement of all wages due shall be effected". It therefore urges the Government to consider the observations made by the workers’ organizations, to make any comments it deems fit and to take the necessary practical measures in the near future.

7.  The Committee notes the comments by the Union of Public Employees of the Medellín subdivision (SINDESENA) sent to the Government on 8 November 2000. The Committee hopes that the Government will send its comments at the same time as its report on the measures taken to protect the wages of these workers.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]