Display in: French - Spanish
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body
- 63. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2008 meeting [see the 350th Report, paras 437 to 449]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
- (a) Regretting that the Government has not provided the information and documents requested despite having received an urgent appeal, the Committee requests the Government to inform it whether, in the context of the dismissal of 54 workers belonging to the Trade Union of Public Employees of the Medellín Municipal Sports and Recreation Institute (ASINDER), with respect to which the High Court of Medellín ordered the payment of full compensation to 49 claimants, the other five trade union members who were dismissed were duly compensated.
- (b) Concerning the dismissal of Mr Libardo Pearson, the Committee once more requests the Government to keep it informed of the final outcome of the legal action instituted.
- (c) Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to institute independent investigations without delay in order to determine whether or not the mass dismissal of the workers of the Public Services Enterprise of Cartagena and the creation of a state industrial and commercial enterprise Productora Metalmecánica de Gaviones de Antioquia (PROMEGA) and its subsequent liquidation resulting in the dismissal of all the workers belonging to the trade union organization SINTRAEMSDES occurred for anti-union reasons. The Committee requests the Government, if the allegations are confirmed, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the workers are fully compensated, to impose sufficiently dissuasive sanctions on those responsible and to keep it informed in this respect.
- 64. The Government provided the following information in communications of 15 September 2008 and 9 March 2009. With regard to recommendation (a), the Government indicates that the number of workers affected by the collective dismissal was 51, and not 54 as indicated when the case was examined previously. Of those 51 workers, 49 took legal action on the grounds of violation of trade union immunity with the High Court in Medellín, Fourth Labour Chamber, and were accordingly compensated in 2005 in accordance with the court’s ruling. The other workers, who had not taken legal action, received compensation in 2001. The Committee notes this information.
- 65. With regard to recommendation (b) concerning the dismissal of Mr Libardo Pearson by the Public Services Enterprise of Cartagena, its liquidation and the pending court cases, the Government indicates that on 26 October 2007, the Eighth Labour Court of the Cartagena Circuit acquitted the enterprise, but that the ruling has been appealed. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the final outcome of this legal action.
- 66. With reference to recommendation (c) concerning the mass dismissal of the workers of the Public Services Enterprise of Cartagena and the creation of a state industrial and commercial enterprise, Productora Metalmecánica de Gaviones de Antioquia (PROMEGA) and its subsequent liquidation, resulting in the dismissal of all the workers belonging to the union SINTRAEMSDES, the Government indicates that in view of the time that has passed it is difficult to institute administrative labour investigations. In this respect, the Committee notes that the allegations relating to PROMEGA date from 1994 and those respecting the Public Services Enterprise of Cartagena from 1997. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the unions did not institute legal or administrative action or court proceedings and that they could only take action within the time limit of three years (section 488 of the Substantive Labour Code).
