Interim Report - Report No 302, March 1996

Case No 1812 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 26-OCT-94 - Closed

Allegations: Employer interference in the establishment of a trade union

1. 519. This complaint is contained in a communication from the International Secretariat of Arts, Communications and Maintenance Trade Unions/International Federation of Audiovisual Workers (ISETU/FISTAV) dated 26 October 1994. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 2 December 1994 and 7 February 1996.
2. 520. Venezuela has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 521. In its communication of 26 October 1994 the ISETU/FISTAV states that the CORAVEN Broadcasting Company has some 2,000 employees throughout the country and that since the founding of Radio Caracas in 1953 the recognized trade union has been the Occupational Trade Union of Radio, Theatre, Cinema, Television and Allied Workers of the Federal District and State of Miranda (SRTVA). The complainant organization adds that SRTVA has about 18,000 members, 800 of whom work for CORAVEN, that SRTVA had a collective agreement with CORAVEN up to 19 June 1994, and that elections were held in October 1993.
2. 522. The complainant organization states that in January 1994, to the trade union's great surprise, the management of CORAVEN and the Ministry of Labour announced that a new trade union under the name of National Union of Workers in the Radio and Television Industry (SINATRAINCORATEL) had been recognized. Despite its name, which would suggest that it covers all workers in the sector throughout the country, this trade union only claims representation in the CORAVEN company. The management added that they had negotiated and signed a collective agreement with the new union in record time, some of whose terms were in some respects less advantageous for the workers than those of the earlier agreement. The complainant organization also mentions that the leaders of the new union used to be members of SRTVA or, more exactly, of a faction that lost the October 1993 elections.
3. 523. The complainant organization alleges that no proper workers' meeting was ever held as the regulations for establishing a trade union require, but that, without explaining why, a kind of staff meeting was called which was attended by 368 workers and representatives of the enterprise who were then told that if they did not join the new union they might lose their jobs. The complainant organization states that about 100 workers signed the proposal to establish a new union.
4. 524. The complainant organization alleges that the creation of the new union SINATRAINCORATEL, and its rapid approval by the Ministry of Labour are in violation of the ILO's Conventions on freedom of association and of a number of national laws. It draws attention to the following anomalies in the approval procedure followed by the Ministry of Labour: the Ministry did not investigate charges that the workers had been intimidated by the management in order to force them to support the new officers of the trade union; several of the formal requirements of the request for approval were not observed (headquarters and purpose of the new trade union), nor were the necessary by-laws submitted until after approval had been given; the Ministry officials failed to point out that all the officers of the new trade union were also registered as members of the existing union, which is not allowed under Venezuelan law; and the extensive period of time normally needed by the Ministry was disregarded in this case and approval granted within a mere two weeks.
5. 525. The complainant organization points out that the new collective agreement was approved not only much more quickly than usual but completely contrary to normal procedure. It says that it is not clear who negotiated the second agreement but that the law prohibits an employer from negotiating a new agreement so long as an earlier agreement is in force and provides that, if this provision is infringed, only negotiated conditions that are more favourable for the employee may enter into force - which was not what happened this time since the employer opted to recognize the less-favourable new convention. The complainant organization further points out that the law stipulates that, if an employer unilaterally cancels an agreement, the Ministry of Labour must oblige him or her to pay the workers' compensation up to the value of the losses they incur over the remaining period during which the agreement would have been in force; this too was not done in this case.
6. 526. Finally, the complainant organization states that, in the light of the foregoing, SRTVA requested the Ministry of Labour to cancel its recognition of the parallel trade union organization and of the collective agreement it had negotiated, but that on 25 February 1994 the Ministry issued a communiqué asserting that it found nothing illegal in the way the new trade union and the negotiated agreement had been recognized. SRTVA and the National Federation of Radio, Theatre, Cinema and Television Workers (FEDERATEL) have lodged an appeal with the judicial authorities and the case is currently before the Supreme Court.

B. The Government's reply

1. 527. In its communication of 2 December 1994 the Government states that the allegations of the complainant organization concern a dispute between CORAVEN-RCTV and its workers, in which the Ministry of Labour has been required to arbitrate. The dispute arose during the period of office of the government that preceded that which took office in February 1994. Moreover, the legal proceedings that have been initiated against the enterprise, on the grounds that it encouraged the creation of a parallel trade union, are still under way, since the appeal is before the Higher Labour Tribunal which has not yet handed down its judgement. Finally, the Government says that the new authorities within the Ministry of Labour, whose officials guarantee full compliance with the laws and regulations in force, must be given time to act.
2. 528. In its communication of 7 February 1996 the Government states that on 24 January 1994 the Directorate of the National Labour Inspection Services and Collective Labour Affairs of the Ministry of Labour officially registered SINATRAINCORATEL, and that on 16 February 1994 SRTVA lodged an appeal with the Directorate to reconsider this administrative decision. The Directorate ruled on 25 February 1994 that the appeal was inadmissible. On 29 March 1994 SRTVA appealed to a higher authority to have the 25 February administrative decision declared null and void. This further appeal was declared inadmissible by the Office of the Ministry of Labour on 3 January 1996. Finally, the Government observes that SRTVA has six months to lodge an appeal against this decision with the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 529. The Committee observes that the complainant organization alleges that the management of CORAVEN-RCTV encouraged the establishment of a new trade union by means of a number of anti-union activities (presence of representatives of the enterprise at the constituent meeting of the new trade union, threats of dismissal against workers who did not join the new union, negotiation of a collective agreement with the new trade union when an earlier agreement was still in force, etc.) and that the administrative authorities committed certain irregularities in the registration of the new trade union.
2. 530. The Committee notes that, in response to these allegations, the Government states: (1) that they concern a dispute between CORAVEN-RCTV and its workers in which the Ministry of Labour is acting as arbitrator, and that the dispute arose during the term of office of the previous government; (2) that the legal proceedings against the enterprise are still under way because the appeal is before the Higher Labour Tribunal which has not yet handed down its judgement; (3) that on 24 January 1994 the Directorate of the National Labour Inspection Services and Collective Labour Affairs of the Ministry of Labour officially registered SINATRAINCORATEL; (4) that SRTVA appealed to the Directorate to reconsider its decision to register the new trade union and that the appeal was declared inadmissible on 25 February 1994; (5) that SRTVA lodged an appeal with a higher authority on 29 March 1994 requesting that the administrative decision rejecting its appeal be declared null and void; (6) that on 3 January 1996 the Office of the Ministry of Labour ruled that this second appeal was inadmissible; and (7) that SRTVA has six months to lodge an appeal against this decision with the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice within six months.
3. 531. The Committee understands that the appeal lodged by SRTVA with the Higher Labour Tribunal is directed against the employer for interfering in the establishment of the new trade union. Parallel with this appeal, SRTVA appealed to the administrative authorities to have the registration of the new trade union cancelled. This administrative appeal was rejected and the trade union can now lodge an appeal against this decision with the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.
4. 532. In the first place, the Committee observes with concern the extremely long period of time that the Ministry of Labour authorities have taken to rule on SRTVA's appeal to have the registration of the new trade union cancelled (from March 1994 to January 1996). On this point, the Committee wishes to draw the Government's attention to the fact that administrative or court proceedings relating to matters of employer interference in violation of Convention No. 98 should be examined quickly, and that an excessive delay in processing such cases is tantamount to a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned. Moreover, the Committee observes that the Government merely lists the various appeals that have been lodged by SRTVA without providing the text of or reasons for the corresponding administrative rulings, and without denying the alleged anti-union interference by the management of the enterprise in the establishment of the new trade union.
5. 533. In these circumstances, while observing that an appeal has been lodged with the Higher Labour Tribunal by SRTVA concerning the alleged interference by the management of CORAVEN-RCTV, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the judicial proceedings and to send it the text of the judgement handed down and of the previous administrative decisions that the Government refers to in its reply.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 534. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the appeal lodged by SRTVA with the Higher Labour Tribunal concerning the alleged interference of the management of CORAVEN-RCTV in the establishment and functioning of SINATRAINCORATEL.