Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 333, March 2004

Case No 2014 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 09-JAN-99 - Closed

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

1. 147. The Committee examined this case relating to anti-union measures and sanctions against trade union officials and workers at the CONAPROLE enterprise at its March 2002 meeting [see 327th Report, paras. 118-120]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the inquiry carried out by the Labour Inspectorate into the alleged restrictions on the access of trade union officials to the workplace.
2. 148. In a communication dated 27 August 2003, the Association of Workers and Employees of CONAPROLE (AOEC) states that the situation of the trade union leader Ramón Vitalis remains unchanged and that the commission that is to re-examine his case has still not been convened (the trade union leader had been dismissed and the Government informed the Committee that his conduct at work would be analysed by a commission made up of representatives from the National Labour Directorate and the Trade Union Confederation PIT-CNT).
3. 149. In its communication dated 30 December 2003, the Government states that the issue of Ramón Vitalis was definitively resolved both at the national level, and with regard to its examination by the Committee on Freedom of Association it had been duly and repeatedly shown that his separation from the enterprise was for work related reasons which in no way constituted a case of trade union repression. This has been the conclusion not only of the administrative procedure carried out before the General Labour Inspectorate, but also of the pronouncements of the labour courts, in both first and second instance. The two rulings agreed that the worker had committed what both doctrine and national case law deem “flagrant bad conduct” and as such he is not entitled to claim abusive dismissal, while any notion of a violation of freedom of association by the enterprise is fully ruled out. The Government adds that without prejudice to the conflict that gave rise to this case (which goes back to 1997), it is clear that labour relations at the enterprise have gone back to normal, as evidenced by the note sent to the ILO by the Association of Workers and Employees of CONAPROLE dated 27 August 2003, so that far from indicating new grounds for conflict it is persisting with the case of Ramón Vitalis, whose work situation has been clearly and definitively resolved from both the administrative and jurisdictional points of view. Lastly, the Government states that relations are fluid between the enterprise and the trade union and mentions the various agreements reached between 1999 and 2003 (the most recent of them in September 2003 concerning wages).
4. 150. The Committee notes this information and in particular that the judicial authority concluded in respect of the dismissal of the trade union leader Mr. Vitalis, that “no causal link was found between the dismissal and the trade union role of the person in question (Mr. Vitalis) ... whereas there is ample proof of the bad conduct cited by the complainant (CONAPROLE enterprise)”. Nevertheless, the Committee regrets to observe that the Government has provided no information about the result of the inquiry carried out by the Labour Inspectorate into the alleged restrictions on access of trade union officials to the workplace. Whatever the case may be, the Committee trusts that in the framework of the normalization of labour relations between the enterprise and the AOEC trade union announced by the Government, this matter has been resolved and requests the Government to ensure that this is the case.