Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 324, March 2001

Case No 1964 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 15-APR-98 - Closed

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

1. 48. At its June 2000 meeting, the Committee made the following conclusions and recommendations [see 322nd Report, paras. 78-81]:
   • The Committee observes that the complainant organization in this case had alleged a number of acts of anti-union interference and discrimination by the management of CONALVIDRIOS S.A., as well as non-compliance by it of the terms of the collective agreement. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee requested the Government to order a thorough investigation into each of the allegations and to keep it informed of the findings.
   • The Committee notes the Government's statements that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has carried out an administrative inquiry into the allegations presented by SINTRAVIDRICOL, and that it was decided, through Ministerial Resolution No. 0661 of 3 May 2000, not to take any administrative measure against CONALVIDRIOS since the regular labour jurisdictions are the ones which have jurisdiction to decide whether workers were dismissed for just cause, and because the complainants have not submitted evidence to support the allegations as regards the refusals of trade union leave, the recognition of trade union organizations, the non-functioning of some committees provided for in the collective agreement, the obstacles to proper industrial relations and the violations of the right to associate. The complainants are still within the prescribed time limits to file revision or appeal proceedings should they so wish.
   • The Committee emphasizes that the initial complaint was presented by the complainant in communications of April and May 1998 and deeply regrets that until very recently, for a period of two years during which it did not send sufficiently detailed information, the Government should have merely stated that it was up to the courts to make a decision on the dismissals of 20 trade unionists and that the complainants had not submitted evidence to substantiate their allegations. The Committee recalls that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and that cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective; an excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of trade union leaders dismissed by an enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of trade union rights of the persons concerned [Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 748-749]. This being so, the Committee stresses that the dismissed trade union leaders may launch the corresponding judicial proceedings and requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of any proceedings filed against Ministerial Resolution No. 0661 of 3 May 2000.
   • Finally, the Committee observes that, according to the Government, the SINTRAVIDRICOL trade union has in this case the option of bringing its case before the ordinary courts or before the penal courts on the grounds that its freedom of association has been violated or of seeking the courts' protection if its fundamental rights have been violated by CONALVIDRIOS S.A. In these circumstances, observing that the complainant refers to more than 100 judicial proceedings with respect to trade union rights violations on which the courts have already ruled, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of any court decision that may be or has been handed down in connection with the allegations presented by the complainant.
2. 49. In its communications of 24 October 2000 and 4 January 2001, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security decided in Ministerial Resolution No. 0661 of 3 May 2000 not to take any administrative measures against CONALVIDRIOS. This Ministerial Resolution was not appealed by the parties and, under article 62 of Decree No. 01 of 1984 (Administrative Code), it has remained executory and has passed through all stages of the legislative process. Nevertheless, SINTRAVIDRICOL, in a document dated 24 August 2000, began proceedings to revoke the aforementioned administrative decision. However, an administrative decision of 19 October 2000 rejected this application for reconsideration. The Committee notes this information.
3. 50. The Government also states that the trade union organization SINTRAVIDRICOL-SECSOACHA has informed the Ministry of Labour and Social Security of special trade union proceedings in the ordinary courts involving 15 trade union officials; conciliation has been reached in five cases. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the proceedings currently under way and expresses the hope that these will be concluded in the near future.