Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 334, June 2004

Case No 2280 (Uruguay) - Complaint date: 30-MAY-03 - Closed

Allegations: The complainants allege that the Gaseba S.A. enterprise established a yellow union, put pressure on workers to resign from the UAOEGAS trade union and has not fulfilled some of the provisions of an agreement concluded in 1997

1. 813. The complaints are contained in communications from the Inter-Trade Union Assembly-Workers’ National Convention (PIT-CNT) and the Autonomous Union of Gas Workers and Employees (UAOEGAS) dated 30 May and 20 July 2003, respectively. The UAOEGAS sent new allegations in a communication of 15 September 2003. The Government sent its observations in a communication of 30 December 2003.
2. 814. Uruguay has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 815. In their communications of 30 May, 20 July and 15 September 2003, the Inter-Trade Union Assembly-Workers’ National Convention (PIT-CNT) and the Autonomous Union of Gas Workers and Employees (UAOEGAS) allege that the Gaseba S.A. enterprise, a subsidiary company of Gaz de France, established a yellow union in 2000 through its human resources manager and used a fax machine belonging to the human resources office to make the initial announcement to workers. Furthermore, they allege that the enterprise constantly takes measures to prevent trade union communication amongst workers (trade union representations to the enterprise’s management, informative talks, etc.) and puts pressure on workers to withdraw their support from the UAOEGAS and resign from this organization.
2. 816. Furthermore, the enterprise rejected a petition presented by the UAOEGAS through the letter of 20 June 2003 to enter into dialogue with the executive committee of the UAOEGAS on specific priority issues, on the grounds that the letter in question was signed by Mr. Washington Beltrán (president of the trade union), who had been dismissed.
3. 817. Moreover, the complainants allege that the enterprise has not fulfilled some of the provisions of the agreement of 12 March 1997, concluded following the dismissal of 33 workers (including some PIT-CNT officers), which, according to the enterprise (although never proven) was due to financial problems and restructuring. The non-fulfilment of these provisions (lack of training for workers who had been provisionally registered for unemployment benefit; the failure to create the tripartite assessment commission and the possibility of special leave for up to 12 months) led, in practice, to the unilateral dismissal of Mr. Washington Beltrán, Mr. Angel García Almada and Mr. Luis A. Puig.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 818. In its communication of 30 December 2003, the Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has repeatedly inspected the Gaseba Uruguay S.A. enterprise for occupational health and safety reasons as well as to assess the non-fulfilment of labour obligations that are subject to monitoring by the General Labour and Social Security Inspectorate and obviously include the respect of freedom of association. As regards the alleged establishment of a yellow union, it should be noted that although a new trade union called the Association of Gas Employees (AFGAS) was established at the enterprise in 2000, this organization was set up through the free exercise of freedom of association as prescribed by Convention No. 98 itself. According to the Government, it should be noted that although this accusation is one of major significance, it was made three years after the alleged false creation of the trade union.
2. 819. The Government points out that since its establishment in 2000, the Association of Gas Employees (AFGAS) has proceeded to elect its executive members through secret voting by its members, has participated in elections for members of the Executive Committee for Standard Medical Insurance at Gaseba S.A. enterprise and enjoys the same privileges that the enterprise has traditionally granted the UAOEGAS. Therefore, the UAOEGAS and the AFGAS have use of the trade union noticeboard and, at the same time, the enterprise uses a check-off facility for the members of both organizations.
3. 820. The Government states that, of a total of 218 employees, 99 are members of the UAOEGAS, which represents 46.12 per cent of the workers, 41 are members of the AFGAS, representing 17.81 per cent of the workers, and the remaining 36 per cent do not belong to a trade union. These figures are a clear sign of the exercise of freedom of association, and of how the enterprise effectively respects the wishes of its workers, not only as regards the possibility of joining the trade union of their choice, but also regarding the participatory bodies involved in labour relations. There is nothing to suggest that the AFGAS is a trade union falsely created at the request of the enterprise or a yellow union. Quite the contrary, it is the result of the free exercise of freedom of association. Furthermore, the UAOEGAS is certainly respected as the majority trade union to the extent that its representatives, along with delegates designated by the enterprise, became members of the bipartite body which manages standard medical insurance through general and secret elections recently held at the institution.
4. 821. The Government states that no further comments are required on the allegations made by the UAOEGAS regarding the dispute which occurred on 7 December 1996 and was concluded with the agreement of 12 March 1997 and the request to reinstate Mr. Washington Beltrán, Mr. Angel García Almada and Mr. Luis Puig. The Government recalls that as stated by the complainant itself, the PIT-CNT, the Ministry of Labour, various parliamentary commissions, the provincial government of Montevideo, the Municipal City Council of Montevideo and the Political Committee of the Broad Front were involved in the agreement that put an end to the dispute in question. Furthermore, this very case was assessed through administrative procedures as well as in the international sphere by the Committee on Freedom of Association itself.
5. 822. The Government states that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security launched an official administrative investigation by the General Inspectorate to establish whether Gaseba S.A. enterprise had committed any acts of an anti-union nature in 1996 when it dismissed 33 workers, including some trade union officers. On that occasion, and following extensive procedures which included processing the ample evidence provided by both parties involved (the trade union and the enterprise), the administration considered that trade union repression had not occurred and decided that the file on this case should be closed. The Government adds that the Committee on Freedom of Association came to a similar decision in Case No. 2033 when issuing its interim conclusions in Report No. 320.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 823. The Committee observes that in the present case the complainants allege that the Gaseba S.A. enterprise: (1) established a yellow union in 2000; (2) takes measures to prevent trade union communication amongst workers and puts pressure on them to resign from the UAOEGAS trade union; (3) rejected a petition presented by the UAOEGAS in June 2003 to enter into dialogue on priority issues, on the grounds that the communication was signed by a dismissed worker (the president of the UAOEGAS, Mr. Washington Beltrán); and (4) has not fulfilled some of the articles of the agreement concluded on 12 March 1997 following the dismissal of 33 workers, which has led, in practice, to the dismissal of Mr. Washington Beltrán, Mr. Angel García Almada and Mr. Luis A. Puig.
2. 824. As regards the alleged establishment of a yellow union by the enterprise (the complainant alleges that through the human resources manager a fax machine belonging to the enterprise was used to make the initial announcement to workers) as well as the alleged measures taken by the enterprise to prevent trade union communication amongst workers, pressure on workers to resign from the UAOEGAS and the rejection of a petition presented by the UAOEGAS in June 2003 to enter into dialogue on priority issues, on the grounds that the communication was signed by a dismissed worker, the Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has repeatedly inspected the enterprise for occupational health and safety reasons as well as to assess the fulfilment of labour obligations; (2) in 2000, as a result of the free exercise of freedom of association, a new trade union called the Association of Gas Employees (AFGAS) was established at the enterprise; (3) the UAOEGAS and the AFGAS have use of the trade union noticeboard and, at the same time, the enterprise uses a check-off facility for the members of both organizations; (4) of a total of 218 employees, 99 are members of the UAOEGAS and 41 are members of the AFGAS; and (5) the UAOEGAS is respected as the majority trade union and as such its representatives, along with delegates designated by the enterprise, became members of the bipartite body which manages standard medical insurance through general and secret elections recently held at the institution. In this respect, the Committee does not have sufficient information to make any conclusions on the involvement of the enterprise in the establishment of the AFGAS. The Committee also observes that the Government has not sent precise observations on the alleged measures taken by the enterprise against the UAOEGAS (it indicates generally that inspections have been conducted) and that the allegations made by the complainants are general (for example, it does not provide the names of the workers who were put under pressure to resign from the UAOEGAS nor the dates when such pressure was applied). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the complainants and the Government to send precise information concerning these allegations, so that, if necessary, the Government may launch without delay an independent investigation in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
3. 825. As regards the alleged non-fulfilment by the Gaseba S.A. enterprise of some of the provisions of the agreement concluded on 12 March 1997 following the dismissal of 33 workers, which has led, in practice, to the dismissal of Mr. Washington Beltrán, Mr. Angel García Almada and Mr. Luis A. Puig, the Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) this case has already been assessed through administrative procedures and by the Committee (Case No. 2033); and (2) at that time the General Labour Inspectorate conducted an investigation and, following extensive procedures which included processing the ample evidence provided, considered that trade union repression had not occurred. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the issue of the dismissals of the trade union officers in question was already assessed during the examination of a complaint presented by the PIT-CNT in 1999, and that on that occasion it was concluded that "there is not sufficient evidence to state with certainty that the dismissal of the trade union officials is linked to their trade union functions or activities, given that they took place under the terms of the agreement of 12 March 1997" [see 320th Report, Case No. 2033, para. 836]. In these circumstances, the Committee will not proceed with the examination of these allegations.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 826. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee requests the Governing Body to approve the following recommendation:
   • As regards the alleged establishment of a yellow union by the Gaseba S.A. enterprise, as well as the alleged measures taken by the enterprise to prevent trade union communication amongst workers, pressure to resign from the UAOEGAS and the rejection of a petition presented by the UAOEGAS in June 2003 to enter into dialogue on priority issues, on the grounds that the communication was signed by a dismissed worker, the Committee requests both the Government and the complainants to send precise information concerning these allegations, so that, if necessary, the Government may launch an independent investigation without delay in this respect.