Definitive Report - Report No 336, March 2005

Case No 2174 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 21-JAN-02 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant alleges that the Medical Assistance Centre of the Medical Trade Union of Uruguay suspended 46 workers without pay and ordered that proceedings be instituted against them for their participation in a strike, and that proceedings were instituted against five workers for having participated in a protest organized by the trade union outside the workplace and one year later the workers were dismissed

1. 813. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2004 meeting [see 333rd Report, paras. 1013-1023].
2. 814. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 28 December 2004.
3. 815. Uruguay has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 816. At its March 2004 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 333rd Report, para. 1023]:
   • (a) The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate, without delay, why the CASMU preventively suspended 46 workers from their duties without pay and instituted proceedings against them, and whether, on reinstatement, they were paid the wages withheld during the five days that the examination proceedings lasted.
   • (b) With regard to the institution of administrative proceedings and subsequent dismissal of Graciela Sadi, Daniel Fernández, Julio César Ximénez, Héctor Pereira and Cyro Simoes allegedly because of their participation in a protest against the President of the Republic, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the administrative investigation being carried out by the General Labour Inspectorate concludes without delay and, should it show that the dismissals arose as a result of the participation of the trade union members in the protest, that it take steps to ensure the workers’ reinstatement in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to send it all decisions handed down in this respect.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 817. In its letter of 28 December 2004, the Government states that following the Committee’s recommendations, it sent a note to the CASMU management asking whether it had suspended 46 workers without pay and instituted administrative proceedings against them, and specifically whether they were paid for the five days that the proceedings lasted. The Government reports that CASMU’s adviser informed it that the CASMU Board decided to drop the proceedings against these workers without making any adverse observations against the workers and that their wages had not been withheld for the five days of suspension that the proceedings lasted.
2. 818. With respect to the other allegations still pending, the Government reports that the General Labour Inspectorate, ex officio, instituted an administrative investigation concerning the dismissals in question. The Government indicates that in view of the fact the AFCASMU had indicated that the sanctioned workers were carrying out an activity decided by the trade union, the General Labour Inspectorate, by a decision of 13 July 2004, ordered the AFCASMU to present the resolution adopted by the general assembly of 23 May which decided on the strike in compliance with which the workers subject to the proceedings were sanctioned by the CASMU Board. The Inspectorate concluded from the documents provided by CASMU, and the comments by AFCASMU concerning the documentation produced, that there was no evidence that the CASMU workers identified as having participated in a protest against the President of the Republic involving verbal abuse and physical assault were doing so in compliance with the industrial action ordered by AFCASMU and duly notified to the heads of the departments in which the workers were employed, nor that the sanction was based on political motives. This is admitted by AFCASMU which indicates that the workers participated in the protest in their half-hour break, and in their capacity as private citizens.
3. 819. The Government adds that, from the proceedings properly instituted at the time, there was no evidence that the four staff were using their break. In that circumstance, the General Labour Inspectorate concluded in its decision of 20 September 2004 that “in this case it is not found that the summary proceedings initiated against the four workers who were absent from their posts without authorization and who were identified in a protest in which the President of the Republic was verbally abused and physically assaulted, wearing the uniform which linked them to their employer, were politically motivated or that the sanctions implied any obstruction of trade union activity.”

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 820. The Committee recalls that at its March 2004 meeting, it requested the Government to indicate, without delay, why the Medical Assistance Centre of the Medical Trade Union (CASMU) preventively suspended 46 workers from their duties without pay and instituted proceedings against them, and whether, on reinstatement, they were paid the wages withheld during the five days that the examination proceedings lasted. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government reports that the CASMU Board decided to drop the proceedings against these workers without making any adverse observations against the workers and that their wages had not been withheld for the five days of suspension that the proceedings lasted. In this respect, the Committee considers that this aspect of the case does not require further examination.
2. 821. The Committee also recalls that concerning the allegations of the institution of summary proceedings and subsequent dismissal of Graciela Sadi, Daniel Fernández, Julio César Ximénez, Héctor Pereira and Cyro Simoes for having participated in a protest during the visit of the President of the Republic, the Committee urged the Government to take steps to ensure that the administrative investigation being carried out by the General Labour Inspectorate concluded without delay and, should it show that the dismissals arose as a result of the participation of the trade union members in the protest, that it take steps to ensure the workers’ reinstatement in their posts.
3. 822. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government states that the General Labour Inspectorate carried out an administrative investigation into the dismissals in question and that: (1) taking into account that the trade union AFCASMU indicated that the sanctioned workers were carrying out an activity decided by the trade union, it was asked to present the resolution adopting the strike action concerned; (2) from the documents presented by CASMU and the comments provided by the trade union AFCASMU, there was no evidence that the CASMU workers who participated in a protest against the President of the Republic in which he was verbally abused and physically assaulted did so in compliance with the industrial action ordered by AFCASMU, duly notified to the heads of the departments in which they were employed, nor that the sanction was politically motivated; (3) there is no evidence from the investigation that the workers in question were using their break, as indicated by AFCASMU; and (4) taking into account all of the above, the General Labour Inspectorate, by a decision of 20 September 2004, concluded that there was no evidence in the event that the summary proceedings and sanctions imposed on the four workers who were absent from their posts without authorization and who were identified in a protest in which the President of the Republic was verbally abused and physically assaulted, implied any obstruction of trade union activity. In the light of the information sent by the Government, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 823. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not require further examination.