Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Colombia (Ratification: 1976)

A Government representative of Colombia expressed acknowledgement of the valuable cooperation and support received from the ILO, and through it, from the countries which had collaborated in the cooperation programme. International cooperation needed to continue to be a fundamental tool in the relationship between the ILO and Colombia, as reflected in the good results of the Technical Cooperation Programme. His country had always analysed with respect the observations made by the Committee of Experts with a view to the progressive harmonization of the national legislation with the ILO Conventions that it had ratified.

With reference to the situation of violence in his country, he stated that it had been affecting society for a number of decades and that his Government, which shared the general concern, had set the goal of reducing violence. Unfortunately, this moment had not yet arrived and it had not been possible to overcome the problem, although he could announce a sustained trend of a decrease in violence. In 2002, nearly 29,000 homicides had been recorded; in 2004, there were 20,000, which amounted to a decrease of 30.61 per cent. In the specific case of labour union leaders, whereas in 2002, unfortunately 205 had been murdered, in 2004 the number of murdered trade unionists had been 89, representing a reduction of 56.58 per cent. If this trend for the reduction of violence continued, by the end of the present year, there would be 15,000 homicides, representing a reduction of nearly 50 per cent in relation to the year when the present Government took office.

The direct contacts mission which visited the country in 2000 had indicated that the Colombian State was not implementing in any form a policy to exterminate any group of society. It was illegal armed groups and drug traffickers who were responsible for the murders, kidnappings and threats against trade unionists, mayors, journalists, religious leaders, counsellors, indigenous peoples, teachers, soldiers, judges, business people, traders and various personalities in national public life. In some cases, even though they were minimal, officials of the current State, acting on an individual basis, had committed abuses. In such cases, the Government had sought to clarify the facts and impose appropriate penalties. The violent death of even one person was enough for the Government to pursue its action to strengthen state measures to guarantee the life of its citizens including, very specially, trade union leaders and members.

The efforts made by the current Government to protect vulnerable groups were not confined to the democratic security policy, but also included the Protection Programme, under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice. He indicated in this respect that over 70 per cent of the nearly 40 million dollars from the national budget for the period 2002-04 had been allocated for the protection of trade union leaders.

According to the report of the National Prosecutor's Office for the period 2002-04 on cases currently under investigation for offences of homicide, in which the victim was associated with a labour union, there had been 36 preventive detentions, 21 charges, four sentences and 131 investigations, which amounted to significant progress in comparison with ten years ago.

To this needed to be added the effort made by the Government to respond, in an increasingly broad, detailed and appropriate manner, to the allegations made to the Committee on Freedom of Association, as recognized by trade union groups themselves. Between 1993 and 2003, these allegations had been related almost exclusively to the murder of trade unionists. Now, the new allegations covered other types of attitudes relating to the exercise of trade union rights, which constituted progress.

He said that it would be an enormous mistake not to acknowledge the problem, just as it would be an enormous mistake to ignore the efforts and achievements that were little by little being made by his country in this respect. He therefore considered that Colombia could be deemed to be a country of progress, even though certain problems persisted, which were in the process of being resolved. If a solution were to be found, three simultaneous elements were required, namely, time, resources and political will. And he reaffirmed the political will of the Government.

With regard to the efforts to combat impunity, he said that there were already detainees and four persons had been convicted. A new system of bringing criminal charges had recently been established in the country, with emphasis on oral procedures and which, combined with the strengthening of the National Prosecutor's Office, would ensure that investigations were more efficient and more effective.

He then referred to the process of legislative amendment, which was a time-taking process, and to the differences between the national legislation and Convention No. 87. He said that the process of legislative reform had taken time and had merited its acknowledgement by the Committee of Experts. At the beginning of the 1990s, a high number of amendments had been made to the legislation and the country had been acknowledged to be a case of notable progress, as indicated in the 1994 General Survey of the Committee of Experts. In its report in 2001, the Committee of Experts had noted with satisfaction the measures taken by Colombia, which had taken into account ten comments made by the Committee of Experts. Of those, there were now currently three, which was lower than average for the countries mentioned in the report.

He indicated in this respect that he challenged the comments relating to the prohibition upon federations and confederations calling strikes. The Government had explained that the Colombian system of freedom of association, the right to organize and collective bargaining was structured around enterprise unions, to which all the inherent attributions of freedom of association and the rights deriving from Convention No. 87 had been granted. His Government considered that this system was entirely valid, was not in violation of Convention No. 87 and permitted better levels of negotiation and social dialogue. His country did not admit that such a limitation constituted a denial of freedom of association and the right to organize.

Secondly, the Committee of Experts had made comments concerning the prohibition of strikes in services the interruption of which could endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population, and the possibility to dismiss trade union leaders who had intervened or participated in an illegal strike. He recalled that the right to strike was enshrined in the Constitution of his country, with the sole exception of essential public services. Under the Colombian legal system, the concept of public service related to those services provided by the State directly or through private entities, regularly or continuously, to cater for the needs of the population and in which the public interest was implicit.

With regard to the possibility envisaged in the law to dismiss workers who participated in collective stoppages which had been declared unlawful, he emphasized that the legislation established requirements and procedures that had to be complied with by workers and employers before calling a strike. Whenever reference was made to an unlawful strike, this did not constitute any limitation on the right to strike, but referred to situations in which the clearly established requirements had not been complied with and which could not therefore receive legal recognition, as they did not stricto sensu fit the concept of a strike.

He added that all the efforts referred to had to be accompanied by the generation of more jobs. In this respect, he indicated that the growth rate of the economy in recent years had been around 4 per cent, which had resulted in the creation of more jobs and a decrease in the unemployment rate over the past two years.

He emphasized the role played by the ILO in promoting social dialogue and expressed gratitude to the Office for its contribution in this field. He called upon trade union leaders and employers to join together in endeavouring to take advantage of the legal areas available to them under the Constitution and to leave aside all types of pressure, both internal and external, intended to polarize relations between them. He added that it was not desirable for a multiplicity of organizations which were not representative of workers to be ruining the reputation of Colombia.

In conclusion, he called for social dialogue to become a crucial instrument through which the ILO and the countries which had demonstrated their concern at the situation in Colombia could contribute in a positive manner to the continuation of the Technical Cooperation Programme approved by the Governing Body in March 2005. He recalled that his country needed time and resources to make progress and he hoped that, encouraged by the results achieved, the international community would provide assistance through the ILO.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative of Colombia for the information provided. They pointed out that the case of Colombia was taking place in a context of civil war and all-pervasive violence which was affecting everyone throughout society, including the Government, employers' organizations and trade unions. The Committee of Experts had indicated on numerous occasions that employer's organizations and trade unions could only operate effectively in a climate of peace and respect for fundamental human rights. However, the problems in Colombia were of a very deep-rooted societal nature. They were placed in perspective by the fact that the financing provided by the drug cartels to the FARC and the paramilitary was even higher than the national budget. The Committee was therefore faced with a conundrum: there could not be any freedom of association in a climate of violence. However, this did not mean that freedom of association would end the violence. Even if the provisions of the labour law met the requirements of Convention No. 87, this was not going to solve the societal issues at stake. This was true for all the three issues relating to freedom of association and the right to strike which were currently being examined by the Conference Committee. Nevertheless, the Employer members emphasized that the violence in Colombia remained unacceptable and undermined the right to freedom of association. If such violence was to be ended, it was important for democratic institutions to be strengthened, and the Government was making efforts to this end.

They noted, in this context, that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts mainly related to the right to strike and that there was no need to deal with them in detail as the Employer's position in this regard was very well-known and had been clearly indicated in the context of the application of Convention No. 87 by Guatemala.

In conclusion, the Employer members believed that the Committee should draw the following conclusions on this case. Firstly, it was fundamental for freedom of association in the country that the Government did everything to end the violence. Secondly, the ILO technical cooperation programme, which had resulted in some progress, should be continued and enhanced. There was, however, a need for more information to be provided on the tangible results achieved through this Technical Cooperation Programme, which they would comment on further in their conclusion to the discussion of the case.

The Worker members indicated that in Colombia approximately 5 per cent of the active population was affiliated to a trade union and less than 1 per cent was covered by a collective agreement. This situation was the result of laws, measures and practices that were hostile to the right to organize. The percentages had been plummeting in recent years for the following reasons: firstly, the legal guarantees that permitted the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining were still not in conformity with Convention No. 87, as frequently emphasized by the Committee of Experts; secondly, the decisions of the three powers flouted the provisions of this Convention. Finally, in practice, a series of factors gave rise to the enormous difficulty of implementing the Convention.

They recalled that the Committee of Experts emphasized four issues in its report. These included the prohibition on the calling of strikes by federations and confederations; the prohibition of strikes in services which were not necessarily essential in the strict sense of the term, particularly as in case of the workers of ECOPETROL; the discretion of the Minister of Social Protection to refer a dispute to arbitration when a strike exceeded a period longer than one year; and the procedures for registering trade unions and the excessive use made by the authorities of their powers to evaluate subscriptions. They reminded the Government firmly of the need to put into practice its proposal made to the Conference Committee the previous year, namely to discuss this matter with the ILO to find a solution. However, another year had gone by and nothing had been done. They further recalled that the Committee had asked the Government in its conclusions of 2004 to supply information on the points to which it had not replied in its report.

The Worker members recalled in the first place the statements made by the Worker members at the Committee's previous session according to which the rights of workers, in particular trade union rights, which were guaranteed by the national legislation were not respected in the context of the merger, liquidation or restructuring of public or private services. Workers' organizations were generally informed of the restructuring on the day it took place. Workers and trade union leaders were dismissed summarily and there was no prior consultation with the unions. The new entities created after such mergers or restructuring usually hired the same persons, but without collective agreements, which were not renewed, and based on arrangements under which the implementation of the provisions of Convention No. 87 was impossible, as the recruitment of workers was carried out by temporary employment agencies or more often through associated labour cooperatives. And yet, it was an enshrined ILO principle, contained in Recommendation No. 193, that cooperatives should not be established or used for the purposes of undermining labour legislation, establishing disguised employment relations or violating the rights of workers through the establishment of pseudo-cooperatives. A large number of enterprises and institutions had undergone this process, including TELECOM, Bancafé and other enterprises related to the social security system, including hospitals. What made the situation even more serious was that it did not consist of a few isolated events. The combination of these practices amounted to an intent to eliminate freedom of association and the related rights. In a clearly planned manner and in response to agreements signed with the World Bank and the IMF, the same scenario was repeated time and again: trade unions were not consulted, measures were adopted on a de facto basis and the powers were used to achieve this end, based on a total denial of trade union rights.

The Worker members added that policies to promote flexible labour rights in recent years had led to a sharp increase in unemployment and employment in the informal economy. To address this situation, the CGT had sought authorization at its congress to proceed with the direct affiliation of workers, but this had been categorically denied. The Worker members emphasized the aggravation of violence, with 174 cases of murders or death threats against trade union leaders between January and April 2004, as well as searches of union premises, arbitrary detentions and kidnappings. This figure had risen to 214 over the same period in 2005, to which the deaths of at least another three trade union leaders should be added, bringing the total number of murders this year to 19. The arbitrary detention of trade unionists, which was on the rise, demonstrated that trade union activities were being criminalized while the murderers of trade unionists remained free. Although there were programmes to protect trade unionists, they needed to be combined with action to identify the perpetrators of threats against unionists. The Worker members denounced the silence of the Government on these cases and the lack of action to investigate them and punish those responsible.

The Worker members also referred to the solidarity missions that had been undertaken by ORIT and the international occupational federations which had tried to visit Colombia, without success, as entry into the country had been refused. They therefore requested explanations from the Government on this subject. Other missions had been able to visit the Colombian authorities, and meet the President, who had confirmed the willingness to enter into dialogue, but who, paradoxically, had insisted on the need for more participative trade unions which were less demanding. Yet, the very essence of trade unions was to ensure the protection of workers' rights through the organization of their activities and the formulation of their programmes of action, which were principally based on the advancement of their claims. They also expressed astonishment that the authorities should give voice to criteria concerning the type of trade union movement that they wished to see, which constituted interference in matters that were normally the sole responsibility of trade unions.

In conclusion, the Worker members emphasized the gravity and continued deterioration in the situation with regard to freedom of association and the right to organize in Colombia. The problems raised by the Committee of Experts in relation to the incompatibility of national law and practice with the provisions of the Convention and the persistence of a climate of violence were aggravated by specific events which demonstrated that the authorities did not support social dialogue and did not really wish to have trade unions, or only trade unions which were essentially participative. Such a situation was the antithesis of decent work and a denial of international law. It could only give rise to higher levels of under employment, unemployment, social exclusion, poverty and violence. And it had to be recognized that violence, in all its forms, and without wishing to justify it in any way, was deeply rooted in the absence of social justice. Freedom of association was a pillar of decent work and social justice. Laws and practices which ran counter to it would only sow the seeds of injustice and strengthen the vicious circle of violence.

A Worker member of Colombia said that trade unionists in his country were concerned by the actions of the Government and the employers to diminish the influence of ILO standards and its supervisory bodies. With regard to violations of trade union rights in his country, he said that the three trade union federations had provided information to the ILO Governing Body and the Committee on Freedom of Association. Although the Constitution of Colombia provided that duly ratified international labour Conventions formed part of internal law, the destruction of Colombian trade unionism was continuing. He referred to various events which violated trade union rights: (1) the dismissal of 3,400 workers from Banco Cafetero with a view to putting an end to the trade union and collective bargaining; (2) the declaration of the strike by workers at ECOPETROL as being unlawful and the subsequent dismissal of 247 workers; and (3) the dismissal of workers from state institutions (such as TELECOM, the Social Insurance Institute, hospitals, etc.) in which trade unions were in operation and collective labour agreements had been negotiated, only for them to be hired on temporary contracts for the provision of services, administrative or civil law contracts, or through cooperatives or other arrangements.

With regard to the violation of human rights, he added that trade union leaders and activists in the CUT continued to suffer various types of aggression. In 2004, 17 leaders and 71 trade union members had been assassinated, while in 2005, two leaders and 17 members had been murdered. This showed the continued policy to exterminate trade union members of CUT. The sector which had been most affected by acts of violence was education and, to a lesser extent, health workers. Nevertheless, death threats were on the increase for all trade unionists, as could be seen in the municipal enterprises of Cali. Finally, he indicated that the situation in Colombia continued to be very serious and called for the State to be urged to punish acts that violated freedom of association and the right to organize and for the necessary measures to be taken to prevent anti-union activities. He called upon the Government to give effect to the recommendations made by the ILO supervisory bodies, particularly those of the Committee on Freedom of Association. He urged the Government to strengthen the programme of protection for trade union leaders and requested the ILO to maintain and improve the Technical Cooperation Programme with Colombia. He also urged the ILO to organize a tripartite mission to Colombia as soon as possible. Finally, he called for the case of Colombia to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Another Worker member of Colombia said that for years both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had been urging the Government to take measures to bring the labour legislation and practice into full conformity with the Conventions on freedom of association. The discrepancies concerned the following provisions: the prohibition of the right to strike for federations and confederations (section 417 (i) of the Labour Code); the prohibition on strikes in non-essential service sectors (section 450 of the Labour Code); the power of the Minister of Social Protection to submit a dispute to arbitration in the event a strike lasting longer than a certain period (section 448, paragraph 4, of the Labour Code); the dismissal of trade union leaders for participating in strikes (section 450 of the Labour Code); declaring a strike illegal by the administrative rather than by the judicial or independent authorities; the denial of the right to collective bargaining for public servants and at the branch level; and the difficulties in the process of trade union registration.

He considered that the above facts were evidence of the persistence of violations of the right to freedom of association despite the Government of Colombia's repeated commitments to take measures to ensure that workers enjoyed the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The political and legal arguments to justify restrictions on freedom of association put forward by the Government and employers were evidence of a strategy to eliminate trade unionism in Colombia, the motto of which appeared to be "labour relations without trade unions or collective bargaining".

He stated that it was obvious that the creation of trade unions was being restricted. During the 1990s, an average of 88 trade unions had been established every year, compared with 104 in 2000 and 2001, 11 in 2003 and 6 in 2004. Some 40,000 trade union affiliates had been lost in the public and private sectors during the two-and-a-half year period of President Uribe's Government. Out of a total working population of 18 million people, fewer than 80,000 workers a year were covered by collective agreements. Employers used bribes to sign agreements with non-unionized workers and the Government simulated the liquidation of enterprises with a view to eliminating unions, collective bargaining and the immunity of union leaders. There were other acts that violated freedom of association, such as the case of the Agrarian Fund, TELECOM, Bancafé and Adpostal. The direct withdrawal by the administrative authorities of the legal authorization for trade unions to operate at the request of employers was an anti-union practice by the Government and the employers which supported it.

The prohibition of the right to strike was another violation in Colombia as in the case of the strike by the USO trade union in ECOPETROL, the purpose of which was to defend the national heritage and national sovereignty, but which was declared illegal by the Government, leading to the dismissal of 248 workers, including 26 trade union leaders, and the failure to comply with the court ruling previously agreed to by the parties. He therefore called for the case to be included in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Another Worker member of Colombia expressed his disappointment at the contrast between the expressions of good will provided by the Government representative and the situation in practice, particularly since the possibility of the way ever being open for trade union activities in his country was increasingly distant. Speaking of freedom of association in Colombia was like speaking of something exotic, because this fundamental right that was inherent to democracy was denied. He said that the ritual of the Conference Committee, which had now been repeated for over 20 years in this case, had not resulted in a way being found to resolve a conflict affecting an economically active population of 22 million people, of whom 4 million were without employment, 10 million were in the informal economy and the great majority had no stable work.

Trade unionism in his country was brutally affected on two sides: firstly, the practice of grave violations of Conventions Nos. 87, 98, 151 and 154, inter alia, affected the stability of trade unionism through murders, forced exiles, threats and intimidation. He referred to the incident in Arauca where three trade union leaders had been assassinated. He drew the Committee's attention to the fact that, for the neo-liberals and advocates of capitalist globalization, the best trade union was one which did not exist.

Moreover, the imposition of labour cooperatives, as practised in the private and public sectors, temporary contracts, subcontracting, the hiring of parallel staff on civil contracts and the constant challenges to an appropriate relationship between capital and labour all provided grounds demonstrating the urgency of reactivating the Ministry of Labour, which had now been merged with the Ministry of Health under the title of Ministry of Social Protection, and which had been converted into a new menace for trade unionism. It could not be understood that in his country there was no longer a Ministry of Labour to guarantee proper relations between capital and labour. For example, situations had occurred in which the Minister of Communication herself had convened workers in hotels to place them under pressure so that they would accept voluntary retirement plans, thereby denying collective bargaining.

He affirmed that his country needed a Ministry of Labour that was serious, dynamic, respectful of national and international standards, with the strengthening of labour inspection to prevent unlawful measures against workers.

He expressed deep concern with regard to freedom of association and the workers employed by TELECOM, whose enterprise had not only been militarized, but who had been dismissed and their trade union abolished, and whose entitlement to retirement pensions had even been denied by the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior. Around 2,000 workers were at risk of losing the benefits of over 25 years' service for the State. The new TELECOM refused to comply with the orders issued by judges in his country who favoured the workers, especially mothers who were heads of families and the disabled. He called for the Labour Code, the Constitution and ILO Conventions and Recommendations to be complied with. Finally, he said that the workers and trade unions in his country were calling for assistance so that they could merely continue to exist.

The Government member of Luxembourg, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and for the Government members of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine , supported Colombia's efforts to bring about justice, social advancement and national reconciliation and to fight against impunity and human rights violations. In this context, she welcomed the recent ratification by Colombia of the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182). However, she pointed out that the situation of trade union rights in Colombia had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for many years and had been before the Conference Committee a number of times. It had also been the subject of numerous complaints examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association. She indicated that while the EU recognized the Government's efforts to increase protective measures aimed at ensuring the security of trade union leaders and trade union premises, it nevertheless expressed grave concern at the continuous high levels of violence and the climate of impunity, in which such acts of violence continued to occur. As the United Nations Commission of Human Rights had recently noted, trade unionists continued to be among the most targeted groups. She stated that the EU strongly condemned the murders and kidnappings of trade unionists and other vulnerable groups, mainly perpetrated in 2004 by illegal armed groups. The EU expected the Government to secure the right to life and security and to address the issue of impunity, which continued to be a major obstacle to the exercise of trade union rights in Colombia. She called upon the Government to make full use of the advisory services and technical assistance of the ILO in order to strengthen democracy and enhance the rule of law in the country, in accordance with the intention expressed at the highest level of the Colombian State during previous meetings of the Government Body.

Finally, the speaker stated that the EU regretted that the lack of progress with regard to certain legislation impeded the full exercise and development of trade union activities. The EU remained concerned, among other matters, at the prohibition of strike action in a wide range of sectors which were not essential services, but which were nevertheless defined as such under Colombian law. The speaker emphasized the importance of social dialogue and called on the Government of Colombia to take resolute action to bring its national law and practice into line with the requirements of the Convention.

The Worker member of France referred to a meeting held on 16 September 2004 between the President of Colombia, Mr. Uribe, and a trade union delegation headed by the General Secretaries of the ICFTU and the WCL, Mr. Guy Ryder and Mr. Willis Thys, in which she had participated representing her trade union organization Force ouvrière. During this meeting, President Uribe had indicated that, in his opinion, Colombian trade unionism was too assertive and not sufficiently participative, or in other words trade unions did not have an entrepreneurial attitude. According to the President, Colombian trade unionism had to change because trade unions were using archaic methods which were bound to disappear in the modern world. In this regard, she indicated that President Uribe's attitude was a matter of grave concern. Indeed, the principle of non-interference by the public authorities in freedom of association was the basis of Convention No. 87. However, it seemed that Mr. Uribe, in contrast, considered that it was normal for a President to define the nature of trade unionism in his country. This attitude did not seem to him to be a violation of Convention No. 87.

By way of illustration, she cited the following passages of a letter sent by the President of Colombia to the President of the enterprise ECOPETROL: "By the present letter, I would like to express warm thanks and congratulations to you as President of ECOPETROL and to all the directors and workers of the enterprise for having completed the process of negotiation with USO ... This process, with the full support of the law and constitutional guarantees, is an example for the whole country. In Colombia we need to create a culture of participative rather than assertive trade unionism. "

The fact that the Convention No 87 was violated by the President himself explained the present situation in Colombia, particularly with regard to the adoption of legislative provisions and legal procedures. These were systematically intended to bring an end to a certain type of trade unionism, namely "assertive" trade unionism. This was the case with the policy to promote a particular type of cooperative, which not only denied power to workers in the enterprise, but were also accompanied by the prohibition of the right to organize. It was also the case with the policy to promote "union contracts", which were intended to transform trade unions into temporary work agencies and to bring an end rapidly to their role of representing workers. It was also the case of all the economic reforms which had seriously weakened or put an end to the right of collective bargaining, such as the pensions reform. Unfortunately, this policy had already borne fruit. Between 2001 and 2004, the number of trade unions created annually had dropped from 140 to six. The numbers spoke for themselves. This policy of the denigration of free trade unions was accompanied by precise vocabulary used in the public speeches by President Uribe. Indeed, he systematically tried to associate free trade unions, or "assertive" unions, with rebellion and guerrilla warfare.

With regard to the assassination on 4 August 2004 of three trade unionists by the armed forces in the region of Arauca, President Uribe had indicated during the meeting on 16 September 2004 that the victims had been members of the guerrilla forces. It even appeared that the Public Prosecutor's Office had recognized that they were trade unionists. The will of the President to bring an end to free trade unionism explained the general climate of violence towards trade unions. Furthermore, this policy was supported by the employers. In this regard, the speaker indicated that during the meeting on 16 September 2004 with the Vice-President of the National Association of Industries (ANDI), Mr. Echavarria, he had expressed the same point of view as President Uribe, indicating that Colombian trade unions were too "assertive" and not sufficiently "participative". This showed that in Colombia the political and economic powers only accepted social dialogue on condition that the social partners were obedient and discreet. They were not prepared to breathe life into the basic principles of democracy.

The intimidation of Colombian trade unionists was so serious that it even went beyond the borders of Colombia. Trade unionists who had also participated in the meeting of 16 September 2004 had been identified by the Government and were now being prevented from carrying out their international trade union activities freely. On 3 November 2004, the trade unionists Victor Baez, Secretary-General of ORITICFTU, Rodolfo Benitez, Secretary-General of UNI America, Antonio Rodriguez, Secretary-General of ITF America, and Cameron Duncan, Secretary-General of ISP America, had been turned back at Bogotá airport. It could therefore be concluded that their names were on a blacklist. This situation was of grave concern. The speaker added that she had not returned to Colombia since September 2004 and feared to do so. As she had participated in the meeting with President Uribe, she supposed that her name was also on a blacklist. The intimidation had nothing to do with the war that was being waged in Colombia. The mere fact of being a free trade unionist supporting free trade unionism in Colombia raised fears for her safety.

Everyone was entitled to their personal opinion on what trade unions should be in their country. Some might even desire in their innermost selves that trade unions were less assertive. However, it was recognized that interference by the public authorities in trade union activities was a violation of Convention No. 87. The definition of what trade unions should be was a task that was the responsibility of the workers and the workers alone. Any vision to the contrary could lead, as in the case of Colombia and elsewhere, to the worst abuses and atrocities. In conclusion, she called on the Committee to convey this message with as much clarity and firmness as possible to the Government of Colombia.

The Government member of the United States said that, in its observation, the Committee of Experts had noted with grave concern the persistent climate of violence in Colombia and the situation of impunity that contributed to it, which prevented the free and effective exercise of trade union rights guaranteed in Convention No. 87. Her Government shared this concern and she pointed out that, although the number of murders had declined, the level of violence and threats of violence was still too high, while the number of convictions of the perpetrators of these acts was unacceptably low.

She added that freedom of association was critical if Colombia were to move successfully towards peace, social justice, reconciliation and democracy. While acknowledging the steps that the Government had taken, she emphasized that the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Freedom of Association had often recalled that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their activities effectively in a climate free of violence and the threat of violence. She, therefore, urged the Government to continue to take full advantage of the ILO's Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia to reinforce protection measures for trade unionists. She called upon the Government to make greater efforts to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the violence that had claimed so many lives. Finally, she encouraged the Government to move forward with the labour law reforms recommended by the Committee of Experts so as to bring the country's laws fully in line with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of Chile referred to various violations of Convention No. 87. The strike that had been called in April 2004 by the trade union USO had been declared illegal by the Minister of Social Protection under the pretext that the oil industry was an essential public service. Declaring the strike illegal had led to the dismissal of 247 union members, under section 450 of the Labour Code. In the case of 106 of these workers, whose reintegration had been ordered by a voluntary arbitration tribunal, a new trial had been initiated. Furthermore, over 1,000 disciplinary procedures had been set in motion to punish workers for exercising their right to strike. He also referred to the administrative decision which had led to the closure of Bancafé and the hospitals and clinics of state social enterprises. He emphasized that such arbitrary action without consultation had led to the destruction of two large union organizations and the violation of labour rights and collective agreements.

He said that union persecution was demonstrated by the discovery in August 2004 of "Operation Dragon", when a lieutenant colonel of the Colombian army, military registry No. 7217167, was arrested and found in possession of documents on the activities of SINTRAEMCALI and information on operation dragon plans for the extra-judicial assassination of the president of the union, Luis Hernandez Monroy, its legal adviser Berenice Celeyta and the leader Alexander Lopez, among others. It was also planned to infiltrate the union and create another enter-prise-controlled union.

He added that 270 rural workers belonging to the rural workers' federation FENSUAGRO had been imprisoned and concluded by saying that violations of freedom of association in Colombia had increased in gravity and by asserting the right of workers in full freedom to establish organizations, elect their representatives, determine their programmes and save their own lives.

The Government member of Canada thanked the Government representative of Colombia for the additional information provided. However, he said that, despite the Government's efforts to improve security, and despite its acknowledgement in the London and Cartagena Declarations of the need to protect and guarantee the right to life and freedom of expression, the situation remained very serious. Trade unionists continued to disappear and continued to be threatened and assassinated. They were also facing other forms of violence, including, harassment, abductions and forced exile, as well as illegal searches and arbitrary detentions. Unfortunately, the perpetrators of these crimes were rarely brought to justice and his Government would look out for any positive results of the measures recently taken by the Government to end impunity. He urged the Government to take additional and concrete steps to end impunity in the country, to ensure that adequate resources were provided for the protection of trade unionists, and to work with the ILO through its Technical Cooperation Programme to pursue constructive social dialogue as a means of achieving social stability, respect for freedom of association and collective bargaining rights.

The Worker member of Venezuela said that the Committee had been examining the case of Colombia for many years and that each year the situation grew worse for the workers of the country. This year once again it was necessary to take note of very serious violations. For example, ECOPETROL had dismissed 247 trade unionists because they had opposed the policy of privatization and greater flexibility in the enterprise. TELECOM had been closed and mass dismissals had been undertaken in the Banco Cafetero. The postal administration and audiovisual companies had also been closed. These measures had been taken with the clear intention of making employment more flexible and less regular, through the imposition of so-called workers' cooperatives with the view to abolishing collective agreements and destroying trade unions. She also referred to acts of violence against trade union leaders and members. Between 1 January 2005 and the month of April, 16 unionized workers had been murdered, 123 had suffered death threats, 12 had been the victims of attempts upon their life, four had been kidnapped, 40 had been held under arbitrary detention and six had been forcibly displaced. The violence was reducing the level of unionization, as the workers were afraid to establish or join trade unions. She also referred to a plan to eliminate the trade union leaders of SINTRAEMCALI for having opposed the policy of greater flexibility and deregulation that was being imposed upon enterprises in the sector. Finally, she said that the Government needed to be called upon to guarantee the rights of organization, collective bargaining and strike and to put an end to the climate of violence against trade union leaders and members, and to the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such violence. The Government should also be urged to take the necessary measures to reform the legislation and bring it into conformity with the Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

The Employer member of Colombia said that he had requested the floor because of a remark by the Worker member of France since she had given a false account of a meeting of the group of trade unionists which had visited the country in September 2004. He therefore wished the Committee to hear directly from the actors involved. He said that Colombia was experiencing a very difficult situation, a long-standing situation of generalized violence and that Colombian enterprises wished to build an inclusive society in a constructive and positive manner. The entrepreneurial sector was contributing to this and was even providing additional resources. For example, 3.34 per cent of the income from sales were allocated to activities of a social nature. Employers promoted family compensation funds. Economic, social and political indicators, as well as action to combat drug trafficking, showed that progress was possible at the institutional level. This was where the private sector wanted resources to be managed in an effective and transparent manner. The recent policies to restructure public entities had been supported by the employers. He stated that he was a member of the Board of the Colombian Social Security Institute, which was of tripartite composition. He indicated that the Institute was losing 250 million dollars a year and that it was clear that dialogue was needed within the Board to find a solution. The position of the union had been intransigent and it had refused any change. It had to be taken into consideration that in a public entity, not only the workers were to be taken into account, but also the millions of insured persons. In relation to the reference to pensions, he said that there were no funds and that currently an estimated 12.5 per cent of the budget went on pensions. In other words, the pay-as-you-go system had collapsed. He asserted that, as a result, there was no policy specifically targeting the workers of the Pensions Institute, but a need to restructure the State. He indicated that 50 state enterprises had been undergoing renovation in various ways, which reflected the restructuring of the public sector in which employers and workers had been invited to participate. However, he said that the workers had never attended the meetings. The Dialogue Commission, which should operate every month and offered a space for dialogue, was not being used as the attitude of the unions was confrontational and not constructive. He said that both he and the National Association of Industries (ANDI) wished to build, through social dialogue and technical cooperation, a society with a better distribution of wealth. Statements by ANDI on the labour chapter of the free trade agreement had appeared in a Colombian newspaper. ANDI had indicated that, with or without the free trade agreement, it was necessary to move forward to change the cooperative system, the legal definition of the concept of essential public services and to modify the collective labour system in areas in which rights were being used in an abusive manner.

The Government member of Peru emphasized the efforts made by the Government of Colombia to reduce the violence and congratulated the Government members who had acknowledged this, in particular the Government representative who spoke on behalf of the European Union. He stated that his country had also gone through a process of internal violence which had been the result of terrorist movements, and he was aware that these actions affected various social sectors, including the trade union movement. He indicated that it was necessary to avoid excesses in the fight against violence. He requested this forum to acknowledge the efforts made by the Government and the people of Colombia and to ask the international community to continue to support this process, which was of particular value for the security of the countries in the region. He hoped that the Government, employers and workers could, through social dialogue and with the technical support of the ILO, create a space for tripartite dialogue similar to that existing in his country. In conclusion, he emphasized that in a climate of violence there could be no real democracy, and without democracy there could not be real respect for workers' rights.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom called for an end to the politicization which was weakening the authority of the Conference Committee. He reaffirmed that the comprehensive campaign to destroy the trade union movement in Colombia was extremely grave, with 94 more murders of trade unionists in 2004, which was more than in the rest of the world combined. Since 2002, there had been a 65 per cent increase in the total number of violations of the human rights of trade unionists, in the form of murders, disappearances, death threats, arbitrary detention and forcible displacement, and an 800 per cent increase in violations against women trade unionists. Yet, some members of the Conference Committee were still claiming that the situation was improving. He added that trade unionists were even harassed when they travelled outside Colombia and that the current regime was refusing to implement the United Nations recommendation demanding an end to the holding of military intelligence files on trade unionists.

He said that it was incredible that a government could arbitrarily detain dozens of trade unionists each year, yet remain unable to break the impunity with which state forces and their paramilitary allies murdered trade unionists. Moreover, detained trade unionists were commonly accused of rebellion and, even though they were eventually released for lack of evidence, the accusation alone served to place them on the death list of the paramilitaries. It had been said by the Employers' group of the Governing Body, in the case of the failure of Myanmar to comply with its obligations under Convention No. 29, that the prevailing impunity was an indication of its tolerance of the gross violation of forced labour, and that any State which lacked the means to punish such crimes was in violation of the principles defended by the ILO. It was absolutely clear that the very same principles should apply to cases of murder in Colombia. He said that delegations from the trade union movement in his country visited Colombia regularly and had been provided by the Vice-President with a list of 13 cases in which it was claimed that the perpetrators had been sentenced and imprisoned. Yet, even in these 13 cases, out of the total of 791 murders of trade unionists between 1999 and 2004, in at least three cases the information provided had been inaccurate or economical with the truth. Indeed, the Government representative had now referred to only four convictions. Focusing on three specific cases, he outlined the inconsistencies in the information provided by the Government and undertook to provide the Office with the related documentation. He said that he could only conclude that, in attempting to suggest that the issue of impunity was being dealt with, the Government was not providing accurate information. He further cited a putative tripartite agreement referred to by the Government of Colombia in a recent discussion in the Governing Body as proof of the progress reached in terms of social dialogue, which had, in fact, been repudiated by the trade unions. He had also received information that the Government had revested to the National Treasury $83,000 unspent from the ILO fund - which the Governing Body had not been told. He expressed concern that the Conference Committee was being prevented from reaching appropriate decisions regarding the case of Colombia, not only by the political and economic interests involved, but also by the lack of verifiable and accurate information. Yet, the ILO's supervisory bodies had the right to expect member States to provide truthful information, which was the underlying reason why a tripartite high-level mission to Colombia was required.

He urged the Committee to adopt conclusions which reflected the continuing deterioration in the situation and that the continued violations of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 were indeed destroying the Colombian trade union movement. If the Committee failed to do so, it would be encouraging further repression, rather than fulfilling its essential role of defending the fundamental right of all workers whatsoever to join and establish organizations of their own choosing for the defence of their interests, including through free collective bargaining.

The Government member of Brazil indicated that his Government was following with great attention developments in Colombia with respect to freedom of association and had taken due note of the statement made by the Government representative. His Government considered that the Conference Committee should support the measures that had been taken with a view to encouraging and strengthening social dialogue in Colombia. It should also take into account the results achieved by the Technical Cooperation Programme concluded between the Government of Colombia and the ILO. He hoped that the Government of Colombia would follow up the measures that had been proposed to improve labour relations in the country.

The Government member of Mexico thanked the Government representative of Colombia for the information provided, which demonstrated the Government's constructive attitude and its cooperation to guarantee the trade union rights provided for in Convention No. 87. The results described might not be up to the expectations of the Committee, but it should be recognized that they indicated that progress was gradually being made. The situation made it difficult to punish the perpetrators of violent acts against trade unionists and violence was affecting all sectors of society. She encouraged the Government, employers and workers of Colombia to strengthen their dialogue and cooperation so as to continue implementing the special Technical Cooperation Programme for the country.

The Government member of China said that the information provided by the Government representative showed that Colombia was indeed making efforts to protect trade union rights. Action was therefore being taken and progress was being made. However, although a gradual improvement was being achieved in the effort to solve the problem, all sides agreed that there was still a long way to go. She noted that the ILO and the Government were engaged in cooperation and hoped that it would be effective in achieving a solution to the problem. She called upon all sides to adopt a practical attitude to enhancing the implementation of the Convention in Colombia and to achieve a settlement of the important issues at stake.

A Government representative said that his comments in reply to the previous speakers could be divided into three parts: (1) there was agreement on important points; (2) there were differences of information; and (3) there were differences of opinion. With regard to the areas of agreement, he felt that employers, workers, most governments and the Government of Colombia all agreed that the ILO programme of technical cooperation had been functioning and that it should continue to do so. He asserted that they should agree to implement the Governing Body's decision of March 2005 and to seek the necessary resources. He pointed out that there had been agreement in so far as governments, as well as employers and workers, had all made reference to violence, and had indicated that the violence was the result of subversive groups and the drug trafficking that had placed the country in this situation. They had also all agreed that even one death was unacceptable. They agreed on the fact that this unacceptable violence, which was inexplicable due to its complexity, made union activities difficult. He added that it was also a difficult situation for employers who ran the risk of being kidnapped and assassinated. There was a situation of generalized violence and the labour situation had to be understood in this context. They had also agreed on the need to combat impunity.

With regard to the second point, differences of information, he recalled the assertion that Bancafé was a solid enterprise. This, however, was wrong, as the Government had already provided it with 612 million dollars, of which 55 million were intended for pensions. Moreover, they were not in agreement on statistics. The workers had said that unemployment had increased, while the Government had indicated that unemployment in 2001 was 20 per cent and had fallen to 12 per cent last month. Government figures showed a clear fall in unemployment. He also referred to other indicators and said that he was offering the data supplied by the Government to the workers so they could examine them, noting that the data had been compiled by independent entities. Nor was there agreement that, as claimed by the workers, the number of collective agreements was falling, as 491 collective agreements had been concluded in 2000, 433 in 2001 and over 400 in 2004. In other words, the average number of collective agreements concluded had not changed. There had not been agreement on the statement that the health care system was not functioning, as last year had witnessed the greatest increase in health coverage for the underprivileged sector of the population. He regretted to hear statements claiming that justice was rarely impartial. He pointed out that many judges were union members and he could not accept the assertion that they were being manipulated. With regard to TELECOM, he said that the Government had no means to support it and that TELECOM did not have sufficient capital. He recalled that many European countries had been obliged to privatize public enterprises and that the President of Colombia had not taken a decision to liquidate TELECOM, but had decided to maintain the enterprise under efficient management. Reference had been made to the dismissal of workers, but nothing had been said about the 70 million dollars provided in compensation and other benefits. It had been said that credit was not available for farmers, but the amount of funds available for microcredit had increased to 2.1 billion dollars. The Government was said to have prohibited the access of trade union members, but Mr. Carlos Rodriguez, who was in the room, did not mention that he had called from the airport because of the difficulties encountered and that after a few hours his group had been able to go through, had been received by the Government and that their visas had even been extended to 30 days. One group of workers had decided to return to their respective countries, but that was a voluntary decision. As for the death of trade union members, he indicated that the workers had not mentioned that the Arauca investigation had been transferred from a military to a civilian court.

Finally, the speaker said that he could not accept the fact that a tripartite forum used adjectives with reference to interventions and that Mr. Uribe had been called a fascist and a liar, or the State an assassin. This was not acceptable behaviour in the ILO for employers or for workers. The discussion should be of a predominantly technical nature and he was concerned about such statements, which were loaded with hate and political interest. He refused to respond to such accusations, except to deny them.

On behalf of his Government, he called upon employers and workers to understand that the situation of the Colombian people was difficult, but that progress was being made. There had been some encouraging results, which showed not that the problems had been resolved, but that efforts were continuously being made. He indicated that, earlier in the day, he had held a meeting with the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and that he had invited him to come to Colombia and meet with the various sectors of Colombian society and all the actors involved in the issue of impunity. He emphasized that both problems and achievements should be recognized. It was necessary to be careful, because there was a risk that, in seeking to punish Colombia, decisions might be taken which could then be used for political purposes, which would not benefit the people of Colombia. He called for the Technical Cooperation Programme to be continued so as to strengthen social dialogue and help reduce violence.

Another Government representative (Vice-Minister of Social Protection) stated the importance of collaboration and cooperation between all instances of the Organization and the Government of Colombia. The Government had invited the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association to visit the country and meet with the Executive Branch, judges, supervisory bodies, workers' and employers' organizations and to get in touch with public opinion. His Government would provide all the necessary information to explain and find a solution to the problems. Collaboration was necessary in order to ensure greater transparency.

The speaker stated that his Government was ready to extend the invitation to the spokespersons for the Worker and Employer members of this Committee, if their visit would contribute to the better understanding of the situation and to finding solutions.

The Worker members took note of the Government's proposals for a visit to take place in Colombia to take full cognizance of the actual situation in the country. They agreed that the problems of the country went well beyond those mentioned by the Committee of Experts in its observation, as witnessed by the obstacles encountered by workers' organizations when they sought to have the most fundamental rights of their members respected.

The Worker members suggested that the Conference Committee decide in favour of a high-level tripartite mission to Colombia, which would include among its members the two Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee and whose mandate would be the application of the Convention and technical cooperation.

The Employer members observed that the problem of violence was central to this difficult case and putting an end to it was essential for the resolution of the case. They noted that the Government was facing difficulties in addressing this problem comprehensively.

The Employer members took note of the proposal made by the Government representative to invite the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Vice-Chairpersons of the Conference Committee to visit the country. They saw this as a positive step that should be commended. They wanted to draw attention, however, to the need to recognize that the mandate and purpose of the Committee on Freedom of Association was different from that of the Conference Committee. The mandate of the Conference Committee was limited to the implementation of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee on Freedom of Association had a broader mandate which was not limited to the terms of the Convention.

The Employer members concluded by noting that the visit would include contacts with the social partners and monitoring bodies, and would place emphasis on the implementation of the Convention in law and in practice with particular focus on the ILO special Technical Cooperation Programme for Colombia.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Minister of Social Protection and the discussion that followed. The Committee observed with great concern that the pending problems were extremely serious and related in particular to murders of trade union leaders and members, other acts of violence against trade unionists and the situation of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. The Committee observed that the acts of violence also affected other sectors and groups including the employers, in particular through abductions. The Committee noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association had examined serious complaints concerning murders and acts of violence against trade unionists. The Committee condemned once again in the strongest terms all these acts of violence in the context of the dramatic situation of violence experienced by the country and indicated to the Government that it had the obligation to take all necessary measures urgently in order to put an end to violence and guarantee the security of persons.

The Committee took note of the Government's statements according to which the number of murders of trade unionists and acts of violence had decreased and the authorities had adopted measures for the protection of trade unionists and trade union premises. The Committee also noted the information contained in the report of the Attorney-General on indictments, detentions and sentences in relation to murders as well as on the new system of incrimination to increase the effectiveness of the investigations in the framework of the fight against impunity.

The Committee recalled that the organizations of workers and employers could exercise their activities in a free and meaningful manner only in a climate that was free from violence and once again urged the Government to guarantee the right to life and security, and to reinforce urgently the necessary institutions to put an end to the inadmissible situation of impunity which constituted a great obstacle to the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee requested the reinforcement of the protection measures for trade unionists and of the ILO Technical Cooperation Programme. The Committee observed more generally that the climate which reigned in the country endangered the exercise of trade union activities and other human rights and that this situation was unacceptable. The Committee noted that the Government had invited the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association to meet with the social actors and the competent authorities in Colombia.

With regard to the requested legal reforms, the Committee took note of the Government's statements on the legal questions raised by the Committee of Experts. The Committee took note of the Government's statements according to which time was needed to move ahead in the process of adjusting the labour legislation and the tripartite labour negotiation.

The Committee took note of the information and allegations of the Worker members in relation to: the failure to respect trade union rights in the context of a large number of restructurings, privatizations, or mergers, particularly in the pubic sector among others; mass dismissals; other anti-union dismissals; the recourse to cooperatives which constituted hidden employment relationships and deprived workers of freedom of association and collective bargaining; the increasing recourse to collective accords with non-unionized workers and the slowness, complexity, malfunctioning, and partiality of judicial processes. The Committee requested the Government to communicate information to the Committee of Experts on all the above points.

The Committee requested the Government to send a detailed report to the Committee of Experts, so that it could examine the developments at its next meeting, including the reply to the comments presented by trade union organizations with regard to the acts of violence, to obstacles to the registration of trade unions and to the provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts. The Committee requested the Government to report on the number of cases of murders which had come to an end before the judicial instances and in which it had been possible to identify those responsible and punish those guilty so that the serious situation of impunity could be contained.

The Committee expressed the firm hope that in the very near future real progress would be observed in particular in order to overcome all obstacles to the full exercise of freedom of association with a view to allowing trade union organizations to exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention in a climate of full security, free from threats and fear. The Committee underlined the importance of having these objectives met through social dialogue and agreement and recalled that the technical assistance of the Office was at the Government's disposal. The Committee requested the Government and the social actors to reactivate social dialogue without delay. The Committee urged the Government to take measures in this respect urgently.

The Committee, noting that the Government had extended its invitation to the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons of the Committee on the Application of Standards, decided that a high-level tripartite visit should take place led by the Chairperson of the Committee on Freedom of Association accompanied by the spokespersons of the Employer and Worker groups of the Committee. The visit that should take place would include meetings with the Government, the organizations of workers and employers, the competent organs of Colombia in the area of investigation and supervision, and would place particular emphasis on all questions relative to the application of Convention No. 87 in law and in practice and to the ILO special Technical Cooperation programme for Colombia.