Interim Report - Report No 351, November 2008

Case No 2576 (Panama) - Complaint date: 27-JUN-07 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

INTRODUCTION
A. The complainants’ allegations
C. The Committee’s conclusions
The Committee's recommendations

Allegations: Acts of anti-union discrimination and interference by the company and the authorities; assaults and threats against trade unionists

1099. The complaint is contained in a communication from the National Union of Security Agency Employees (UNTAS) and Union Network International (UNI) dated 27 June 2007.
1100. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 19 December 2007 and 7 May 2008.
1101. Panama 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. The complainants’ allegations

1102. In their communication of 27 June 2007, the UNTAS and UNI allege the following violations of trade union rights by the Group 4 Securicor company, the largest employer in the private security sector:
– it transferred workers under the pretext of corporate restructuring, with the intent and effect of weakening the union and undermining collective bargaining;
– it dismissed and disciplined trade unionists who had participated in peaceful protests seeking to assert their rights under the law;
– it provided financial, material and legal support to the criminal elements who violently attacked and robbed trade union leaders;
– it instigated and materially supported a conflict within the union, going as far as to foster the emergence of a pro-employer faction;
– it deducted and then withheld union dues, undermining the stability and morale of the duly elected union leadership;
– it threatened trade union members who participated in peaceful demonstrations with criminal sanctions and civil suits.
1103. With respect to the transfer of workers, the complainant organizations explain that Group 4 Securicor’s Panamanian operations are handled by two subsidiaries, G4S SA and G4S Valores. Until 16 August 2006, G4S SA employed over 100 workers and G4S Valores some 580. The UNTAS, which represented workers at G4S Valores, had for over six years been seeking to negotiate increases in wages and other benefits with the employer. Just days before the commencement of the negotiations which had finally been scheduled, the employer requested the transfer of 380 workers from G4S Valores to G4S SA. Union members have cited repeated remarks by members of the management to the effect that the transfer was designed to weaken the union. However, regardless of the intention, it is to be noted that, under Panama’s legislation, no corporate restructuring or transfer of workers may affect the exercise of freedom of association or functioning of the union, and all other existing rights and relations must remain unaltered. Despite this, the salary cheques show that the workers, with the transfer, lost all recognition of their length of service, even though most of them had been with Group 4 Securicor for a period of eight to 25 years. The act of depriving these workers of their acquired rights has occurred against the background of an anti-union campaign. The UNTAS challenged the transfers and other violations of the Labour Code in an appeal brought before the Ministry of Labour and Labour Development (MITRADEL) on 29 August 2006. The appeal went to compulsory conciliation and it proved impossible to reach a mutually satisfactory solution by 6 September 2006, the date of the final meeting. The matter is currently blocked in the MITRADEL.
1104. As regards the dismissals in response to peaceful protests against the impact of the transfers on the workers’ rights, the complainants allege that the UNTAS organized a protest which began on 6 October 2006 with a work slowdown and that Group 4 Securicor sought to have the protest declared unlawful, portraying it as a “de facto work stoppage” or unlawful strike and calling for it to be characterized as such by the judicial authority, while also claiming, falsely, that material damage had been caused.
1105. On 17 October 2006, before any judicial decision had been handed down, the company dismissed dozens of workers. On 24 October, the Labour Tribunal dismissed the idea of there having been a strike or of any unlawfulness in that regard. The company appealed and the High Court allowed the company’s argument that there had been a “de facto work stoppage”, that this should result in the sanctions foreseen in the case of unlawful strikes, and that there could be no legal protection for anyone having damaged property or prevented persons or vehicles from accessing the workplace. On the basis of the High Court’s decision, the company requested that the trade union immunity of the union leaders be suspended, but without success. Nevertheless, the company has not allowed the union leaders Mr Cubilla (General Secretary), Mr Roberto Adamson and Mr Arcelio Aguilar to engage in shift work and has not provided them with a uniform.
1106. On 13 November 2007, the UNTAS lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice against the various measures taken by the company and the description of the protest as a “de facto work stoppage”; however, the said court has not yet given a decision on the matter.
1107. As regards the company’s participation in violent assaults against demonstrating trade unionists, on 16 February 2007 at 3 a.m. there were eight assailants (including the drivers of vehicles who were arrested by the police and in whose vehicles items belonging to the trade unionists were found); two of them belonged to the company; a third was carrying a firearm and had threateningly ordered the trade unionists to leave the property and forced them to hand over all their money; one trade unionist was beaten and had to be hospitalized. One of the assailants told the police that he was acting on the orders of someone high up in the company. Nevertheless, despite requests to that end by the UNTAS, there has been no police investigation into the part played by the company’s management in the aforementioned assaults, and the persons arrested were detained for only a short time and appear not to be the subject of any further investigation.
1108. The company has interfered in the union’s internal affairs, providing facilities and financial support to nine dissidents within the UNTAS and failing to hand over the union dues. The dissidents requested the labour inspectorate to be present at an UNTAS “election” on 26 March 2007 (despite the unlawfulness of that initiative and the formal opposition thereto on the part of the General Secretary). Very few people took part in the unlawful election but, despite all the foregoing, it was certified by the Government.
1109. The complainant organizations request the Committee on Freedom of Association to call on the Government of Panama to commit Group 4 Securicor and the UNTAS, as well as UNI, to enter into constructive dialogue aimed at bringing about a lasting solution to these problems. The Panamanian Government’s full cooperation with the Committee in this case, coupled, on the broader level, with a demonstrated willingness to participate in comprehensive international dialogue on such matters, would help to bring about a more viable and sustainable remedying of the aforementioned violations by enabling the UNTAS to secure a more comprehensive set of trade union rights, including in cases where the Government lacks the ability and proven willingness to give adequate effect to the relevant legislation vis-à-vis the company.
B. The Government’s reply
1110. In its communication of 17 December 2007, the Government recalls that the allegations made by the UNTAS relate specifically to: (1) the transfer of workers with the aim of weakening the union and undermining collective bargaining; (2) the dismissal of trade unionists who had participated in peaceful protests in an attempt to assert their rights; (3) the provision of financial and material support to the persons who attacked and robbed trade union officials; (4) the company’s instigation of and support for the establishment of a union; (5) the deduction and subsequent withholding of trade union dues; and (6) the threatening with criminal sanctions and civil suits of trade union members participating in peaceful demonstrations.
1111. In this respect, the Government explains that items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 fall within the sole jurisdiction of the MITRADEL. For the rest, the Panamanian State provides for measures for the protection and fostering of trade unionism, while not intervening in internal affairs, through technical and economic assistance, trade union immunity and sanctions for unfair practices. In this regard (unfair practices), the UNTAS had the right to file the corresponding complaints, either through the criminal justice system or through the special labour courts, but not through the MITRADEL. The special labour courts have the necessary competence to handle the case in question. Articles 379 to 389 of the Labour Code, which relate to such matters, provide as follows:
Article 379. The Panamanian State, through the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, shall foster the establishment of trade unions in those activities or locations where they do not exist, respecting the right of workers to establish the type and number of trade unions they consider appropriate.
The Ministry shall likewise promote the affiliation of workers in existing trade unions, leaving them absolutely free to join the union of their choice.
Article 380. The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare shall provide social organizations with the necessary technical and economic assistance to enable them to organize programmes, courses, labour education and trade union training seminars, and congresses. The economic assistance to be provided by the State to social organizations for the aforementioned purposes shall be channelled through duly constituted central workers’ organizations, independent federations and independent national unions, having regard to the number of affiliated workers. Where economic support for the holding of congresses is concerned, such assistance shall be regulated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare by executive decree.
Article 381. Trade union immunity shall be extended to:
1. The members of trade unions in the process of being established.
2. The members of the executive committees of trade unions, federations and confederations or central workers’ organizations, subject to the provisions of articles 369 and 382.
3. Substitute members of executive committees.
4. Trade union representatives.
Article 382. In the case referred to in article 381(3) above, where a trade union has over 200 members it may appoint substitutes in equal or lesser number to the titular executive committee members, and all of them shall enjoy trade union immunity. Where a union has less than 200 members, it may appoint one substitute for each titular executive committee member, but trade union immunity shall be extended only to five substitutes, to be identified on the basis of those having obtained the highest number of votes in the respective election. In the event that a substitute is subsequently replaced, his or her immunity shall be transferred to the replacement substitute.
Substitutes within the executive committees of federations, confederations and central workers’ organizations shall in all cases enjoy trade union immunity.
Article 383. A worker covered by trade union immunity may not be dismissed without prior authorization from the labour tribunals based on a just cause provided for in the legislation. Any dismissal effected in defiance of the provisions of this article shall constitute a violation of trade union immunity.
Trade union immunity shall also be deemed to have been violated in the event of the unilateral alteration of a worker’s working conditions or of his or her transfer to another establishment or work centre, where such transfer does not form part of his or her obligations, or, if it does, where it prevents or hampers the exercise of the worker’s union functions, in which case the prior judicial authorization shall likewise be required.
Article 384. The duration of trade union immunity is subject to the following rules:
1. For the members of a trade union in the process of establishment, immunity shall last for a period of up to three months following the date of acceptance of that union’s registration.
2. For titular executive committee members and any substitutes to whom immunity applies, as well as for trade union representatives, immunity shall last for a period of up to one year following the cessation of their functions.
3. Trade union immunity shall be recognized as from the time at which a worker’s name appears in an electoral roll, provided the electoral roll is communicated to the employer or Labour Inspectorate; in all events, protection may only be granted for a maximum of the one month preceding the elections.
4. Those candidates who are elected shall continue to enjoy trade union immunity, including in the period preceding the assumption of their duties, while those who were not elected shall continue to enjoy immunity for a period of one month following confirmation of the election results.
5. In the event that the communication referred to in paragraph 3 of this article is not effected, trade union immunity shall be extended to the trade union officials and representatives as from the date of their election.
Article 385. Workers, or their representatives, in the process of organizing a trade union may, for the purpose of obtaining trade union immunity, notify the Regional or General Directorate of Labour, in writing, of the group’s intention to work towards the establishment of the union, providing to that end a statement of the names and particulars of each member of the group and details of the company, establishment or business in which they are employed. Any group wishing to submit such a communication must comprise more than 20 workers.
The union shall be deemed to be in the process of establishment only as from the point in time at which the notification referred to in this article is submitted, and its members shall enjoy trade union immunity for a period of up to thirty working days thereafter, if during that period they have not formalized the request for registration of the union, in accordance with article 352. Once the request for registration has been formalized, the workers shall continue to enjoy trade union immunity in accordance with the provisions of articles 381(1) and 384(1).
In the event that objections are raised to the request for registration of the union, the immunity shall be valid throughout the period granted for the purpose of overcoming those objections. Once the objections have been overcome, the trade union immunity of the members of the union in the process of establishment shall be governed by the rules laid down in articles 381 and 384.
Article 386. Following the submission of the communication referred to in the previous article, or the request for registration of the union, any interested worker may inform the Regional or General Directorate of Labour of his or her affiliation to the union in the process of establishment, as from which moment he or she shall enjoy trade union immunity.
In the event that those organizing the trade union do not submit the communication referred to in the previous article, the trade union shall be considered to be in the process of establishment as from the time of submission of the request for registration.
Article 387. The labour authorities shall notify the employer or employers of the submission of the communication referred to in the previous articles, or of the request for registration formulated by the workers. The labour authority’s failure to provide such notification shall not, however, affect the granting of trade union immunity, this being without prejudice to any sanctions that may be applicable in respect of the official in question.
Article 388. The following shall be considered unfair practices vis-à-vis trade unionism and workers’ rights:
1. The drawing up of blacklists.
2. The ill-treatment of workers.
3. Dismissals, sanctions, reprisals, transfers, worsening of working conditions or acts of discrimination as a response to individual or collective demands, the fact of organizing or belonging to a trade union, or the fact of having participated in a strike or signed a list of claims.
4. The dismissal of one or more workers known to be under the protection of trade union immunity.
5. Acts of interference on the part of employers for the purpose of fostering the organization or control of workers’ unions, or to bring about resignation from or nonaffiliation to a union.
6. Providing or offering to a workers’ social organization sums of money other than those provided for under the law or under a collective labour agreement, subject to the proviso, in the latter case, that such sums are intended for housing programmes or other works of direct benefit to the workers.
7. The dismissal or worsening of the working conditions of a number of permanently unionized workers in such a way as to modify, to the latter’s detriment, the ratio of unionized to non-unionized staff, or the proportion of staff belonging to another union, within the company, unless the company provides the labour tribunals with prior justification for the causes of such dismissals or modification of said ratios. This rule shall apply even in the event that such dismissals are not effected simultaneously.
In the case foreseen in paragraph 7 of this article, workers who have been dismissed shall have the right to reinstatement with payment of their arrears of salary; however, this shall apply solely to workers whose dismissal took effect no earlier than three months prior to the date on which the claim is made. Any disputes arising out of the application of this sub-item shall be dealt with through an abbreviated procedure.
Article 389. Any infringements of the rules laid down in this section shall be sanctioned by fines ranging from one hundred to two thousand balboas, according to the gravity of the circumstances. Such fines shall be successively doubled each time the employer in question repeats the infringement, and shall be imposed by the administrative authorities or labour tribunals.
1112. With respect to item 5, concerning the deduction and subsequent withholding from the union of trade union dues, the Government states that the ILO indicates that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and to join organizations without previous authorization (ILO Convention No. 87, Article 2).
1113. The right of employers and workers to join trade unions is recognized under the national law. Legal status is acquired through registration (article 68 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama). They may establish and join unions of workers and employers without authorization (section 335 of the Labour Code). The aforementioned article and section provide as follows:
Political Constitution of the Republic
Article 68. The right to organize is guaranteed to employers, employees and professionals of all categories for the purposes of their economic and social activity.
The Executive shall have a non-extendable period of thirty days within which to allow or reject the registration of a trade union.
The Act shall regulate all matters relating to the Executive’s recognition of trade unions, whose legal status shall be determined by their registration.
The Executive shall be able to dissolve a trade union only in the event that it constantly departs from its purposes and where this is declared to be the case by the competent tribunal in the form of a final ruling.
The executive bodies of such associations shall be made up solely of Panamanians.
Labour Code
Section 335. Trade unions may be established without the need for authorization, and may be joined, by employers, workers, professionals and employees, regardless of the trade, profession or activity in which they are engaged.
It is important to emphasize that the State does not establish trade unions, and that what it is doing when it grants them legal status is to recognize a pre-existing reality. A union’s legal status gives it the legal basis for acting as a grouping which represents the interests of its members.
1114. The ILO states that organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, elect their representatives, organize their administration and activities and formulate their programmes. The authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof (Convention No. 87, Article 3).
1115. Under the national law, the request for registration shall be processed free of charge and on ordinary paper (section 351 of the Labour Code). Requirements for registration: a request signed by the President or General Secretary; submission to the MITRADEL together with a certified copy of the constituent act, statutes and report of the corresponding meeting (section 352 of the Labour Code). The said sections read as follows:
Section 351. The registration of a trade union, federation, confederation or central workers’ organization in the corresponding registers of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare shall determine its legal status. The formalities for the registration of a social organization shall be carried out on ordinary paper and shall not be subject to any charge.
Section 352. Acceptance of registration shall take place within a non-extendable period of fifteen calendar days, counted as from the date on which the Ministry receives the request for registration, in respect of which the following requirements shall apply:
1. The request must be signed by the president or general secretary of the trade union in the process of being established, or of the federation, confederation or central workers’ organization in question.
2. It must be submitted to the General Directorate of Labour, either direct or through the labour authorities or highest political authority of the locality in question.
3. It must be accompanied by a certified copy of the constituent act and approved statutes, as well as of the minutes of the meeting or meetings in the course of which such approval was decided.
The constituent act shall be signed by the founder members of the trade union, or by persons mandated to that effect in the event of one or more founder members being unable to sign, and shall indicate the type of union, its legal address, number of members, and the first and family names and personal identity card number of each member of its executive body.
The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare shall, within the fifteen-day period to which this article refers, check the personal identity card details recorded in the constituent act, of at least the minimum number of members required under section 344.
In the case of federations, confederations or central workers’ organizations, the constituent act shall be signed by the representatives of the respective founder organizations and shall indicate their address, the name and address of all the member organizations and the first and family names and personal identity card number of each member of its executive body.
The aforementioned documentation shall be submitted in triplicate. One copy shall be returned to those concerned, duly certified as to the fact of its submission, including the date and time thereof. One copy shall remain in the registration office, and the remaining copy shall be used for processing purposes.
1116. The ILO states that workers’ and employers’ organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved by administrative authority (Convention No. 87, Article 4). Under the national law, the executive may not dissolve a trade union unless it has departed from its purposes and this has been declared to be the case by a competent tribunal in the form of a final ruling (article 68 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Panama, the text of which is transcribed above). Such cases are dealt with through an abbreviated procedure in the labour courts of the judicial organ (section 393 of the Labour Code). This section provides as follows:
Section 393. The fining or dissolution of a social organization shall be effected through an abbreviated procedure, and may be requested by:
1. The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, in the case of a fine.
2. The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, in the cases referred to in sub-items 1 and 2 of the previous section.
3. The Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, in the case foreseen in sub-item 3 of the previous section, provided a request to that end is submitted to it by a federation, confederation or central workers’ organization.
1117. The Government states, with reference to the foregoing, that the Ministry of Labour handles any labour conflicts that are reported to it, in conformity with the Political Constitution of the Republic, the national standards, as well as the laws and the ILO Conventions that Panama has ratified.
1118. The Government gives its assurance that the actions of the national Government in this case have been in conformity with the procedures laid down in the national legislation, with respect for the international instruments it has ratified, making it difficult to understand how there can be reports of violations of the complainants’ union rights.
1119. In its communication of 7 May 2008, the Government states, in relation to Case No. 2576, that, on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Ministry of Labour’s General Directorate of Labour, where the negotiation of a collective agreement or series of claims pertaining to a violation of the law is concerned, this may not be varied or altered under any circumstances by the Ministry, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Labour Code. For the purposes of the matter under discussion, ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 are instruments forming part of the Labour Code and which the national Government respects and endeavours to apply in full, in consensus with the social partners.
1120. More specifically, the Government states that, on 6 June 2006, the UNTAS presented a series of claims against the company G4S Valores and G4S SA alleging violation of the labour act and collective labour agreement. In response to those claims, the General Directorate of Labour of the MITRADEL initiated the corresponding procedure in accordance with the relevant legislation. Subsequently, with the conflict on the negotiating table, it was jointly agreed to put on record, on 6 September 2006, that the trade union had withdrawn its series of claims alleging violation of the labour act and collective agreement, and that the conflict was thus at an end.
1121. Prior to the withdrawal of the series of claims in question, the company, on 31 August 2006, requested that the case be set aside owing to the fact that the union had abandoned the negotiations. In response to that request, the General Directorate of Labour, in its note No. 744-DGT-06 of 5 September 2006, stated that: “Even though the conciliation process has formally concluded, the Ministry, in its role as conciliator, continues to call on the parties in the interests of identifying solutions to those points of conflict that remain unresolved …”
1122. On 16 June 2006, the UNTAS once again presented a series of claims against G4S Valores with a view to the negotiation of a new collective agreement. In this respect, the General Directorate of Labour stated the following in one of the paragraphs of its note
No. 516-DGT-06 of 20 June 2006: “during the period of validity of collective labour agreements, lists of claims aimed at introducing direct or indirect modifications or new clauses into the collective agreement shall not be accepted. The General or Regional Directorate of Labour is empowered to reject outright any such list deemed irreceivable under the terms of this provision”.
1123. In the same context, on 23 September 2006 the UNTAS once again presented its series of claims against G4S Valores alleging violation of the act and collective agreement. On that same day, the General Directorate of Labour informed the union, by its note No. 810DGT-06, that it was unable to initiate a procedure in response to the claims submitted, on account of the fact that: “it is contradictory for a dispute to be declared terminated or concluded and for there nevertheless to be reports of violations when there has not even been a reasonable amount of time for the occurrence of violations, agreements or legal obligations”.
1124. Finally, on 9 October 2006, the union once again put forward the same dispute with the aforementioned company. In response to this, the General Directorate of Labour, by its note No. 833 of 17 October 2006, returned the document in question on the basis of the timing aspect, informing the union as follows in its communication:
By Note No. 810-DGT-06, we wrote to you explaining that we were unable to initiate a procedure in response to the claims you submitted on the afternoon of 6 September 2006.
Although you refused to receive that communication, it is noted that on 9 October at 13.00 hours you signed the note in question by way of acknowledgement of receipt, and then, only a matter of minutes later, at 13.50 hours, submitted a new series of claims alleging violations of the Labour Code and collective agreement.
In this regard, we would inform you that it is unacceptable to report violations when insufficient time has elapsed for any agreements to have been breached. We would also observe that the decision to submit the list of complaints was taken in the course of an assembly allegedly held on 30 September 2006, when the procedure in respect of the claims submitted on 6 September 2006 was still in progress. Finally, we note that the document which contains or should contain the names and signatures of the workers supporting the list of claims appears to have been altered in the upper margin, thereby potentially undermining its authenticity.
In the light of the above considerations, we hereby return to you the claims documentation submitted on 9 October 2006.
1125. The actions of the national Government and Ministry of Labour in this case have been in conformity with the procedures laid down in the national labour legislation, with respect for the international instruments ratified, making it difficult to understand how there can be reports of violations of the complainants’ union rights.
1126. From the documentation sent by the Government it emerges that, on 6 September 2006, the UNTAS and the company held a meeting and agreed on the withdrawal of the union’s list of claims and the ending of the strike.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1127. The Committee observes that the complaint relates to: (1) allegations relating to the year 2006 and concerning the unlawful transfer, within the context of corporate restructuring, of 380 workers belonging to the Group 4 Securicor company a matter of days before collective bargaining was due to begin with the complainant union, the UNTAS, with the loss of a number of acquired rights; and the dismissal of dozens of workers following peaceful protests in October 2006, even before the judicial authority had ruled on the lawfulness or otherwise of the action (the judicial authority considered there to have been a “de facto work stoppage”, but the Supreme Court of Justice currently has before it an appeal against that decision); (2)(a) allegations relating to the year 2007 to the effect that the company had ordered two of its workers to attack demonstrating trade unionists, at 3 a.m. on 16 February 2007, with the aim of forcing them to leave the company’s property; according to the complainant union, there were eight assailants (two of whom were arrested and subsequently released) who seized money and belongings from the trade unionists, who were also threatened with a firearm by one of the assailants; one of the trade unionists was beaten and had to be hospitalized; (b) financial support provided by the company to a very small group of dissidents within the union who organized so-called elections which were certified by the Government; and (c) the failure (on the part of the company) to hand over to the union the trade union dues.
1128. The Committee takes note of the Government’s extensive reply containing numerous extracts from the legislation in force but which does not, however, provide sufficient clarifications on the majority of the allegations.
1129. As regards the alleged transfer of 380 workers with the loss of a number of acquired rights in August 2006, prior to the commencement of negotiations with the company on the restructuring, the Committee notes the Government’s information that the parties came to an agreement on 6 September 2006 whereby the strike was ended and the UNTAS union withdrew its list of complaints. The Committee has no information as to whether – or not, as the complainant organizations allege – the aforementioned August 2006 transfers were preceded by consultations or negotiations. However, inasmuch as the parties came to an agreement in September 2006 whereby the strike was ended, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.
1130. As regards the allegations concerning the dismissal of dozens of workers following peaceful protests organized by the UNTAS as from 6 September 2006, with a slowdown in the pace of work, the Committee observes that according to the allegations the judicial authority did not accede to the company’s request for a suspension of the trade union immunity of the union officials Mr Cubilla, Mr Adamson and Mr Aguilar, and that the company allegedly prevented those officials from working their shifts. The Committee has received no observations from the Government in respect of these three officials, other than a reference to the legal provisions governing trade union immunity (which facilitate the submission of judicial complaints); it requests the Government to ensure that they have been able to return to their posts of work under normal conditions and that it keep the Committee informed in that regard. As regards the other dismissals of trade unionists allegedly associated with the aforementioned peaceful protest, the Committee observes that the Government confines itself to stating that the matter of the dismissals falls within the sole competence of the Ministry of Labour, that the legislation provides for measures designed to protect trade union immunity against unfair practices and dismissals which alter the proportion of unionized workers (section 388(7) of the Labour Code), and that the union was entitled to file judicial complaints. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with a copy, as soon as it is handed down, of the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice, as referred to by the complainant organizations, in regard to the various measures taken by the company and the question of whether the workers held a “de facto work stoppage”, and that the Government provide it with specific information in regard to the alleged anti-union nature of the dozens of dismissals that occurred during the restructuring, affecting (judging by the allegations) a large number of trade unionists and thereby weakening the union, and that it likewise provide it with any judgement which the courts may have handed down in relation to those dismissals. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
1131. As regards the alleged failure by the company to hand over to the union the dues paid by its members (allegations relating to 2007), the Committee notes that the Government makes no specific reference to this matter but mentions legal provisions relating to the right to organize and to the registration and dissolution of trade unions. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with detailed information on the aforementioned allegation and to ensure that the relevant legislation in regard to check-off facilities for union members’ dues is complied with by the company.
1132. As regards the other matters, namely the alleged: (1) violent assault on and robbery of trade unionists exercising their right to protest, by individuals having received orders from the company management to get rid of them, resulting in one worker having to be hospitalized; (2) financial support from the company for the creation of a trade union; and (3) threats of civil and penal sanctions against trade unionists having participated in peaceful demonstrations, the Committee observes that the Government once again confines itself to stating that these are issues falling solely within the competence of the Ministry of Labour, that the legislation provides for measures for affording protection against unfair practices and acts of interference on the part of employers, and that the union had the right to file judicial complaints. The Committee requests the Government to send it specific information on these allegations, which in and of themselves would have called for an investigation on the part of the labour inspectorate, and, in the hope that it will receive such detailed information without delay, requests the Government to take the necessary steps to transmit it. The Committee points out that the complainant organizations refer to the unlawful certification (recognition) of the trade union elections conducted by a very small group of dissidents, and to the granting by the company of financial support to nine of them. Thus, in the absence of specific information from the Government in that regard, it is not known whether the union’s new executive committee has dislodged the one which submitted the complaint to the Committee. The Committee requests the Government to provide it with clarification in that respect. Moreover, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the trade union organizations affected and the dismissed trade union leaders have instituted additional judicial action.
1133. As regards the request by the complainant organizations for the union to be able to participate in a constructive and comprehensive dialogue with the company, the Committee has already taken note of the Government’s explanations regarding the series of claims filed by the UNTAS union on 6 June 2006, and of the withdrawal of those claims on 6 September 2006 by common agreement of the parties (the company and the union); it also notes that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour had previously, in June, rejected those claims in accordance with the legislation, since a collective agreement was in force. The Committee observes that the Government states that on 9 October 2006 the series of claims was resubmitted and that the Ministry of Labour refused to receive it on account of doubts as to the authenticity of the signatures and of its having been submitted on 9 October 2006, only minutes after the union having been informed that its request of 6 September 2006 could not be processed. The Committee invites the Government to provide it with information on any measures taken as from November 2006 to give effect to the union’s request for the implementation of collective bargaining.

The Committee's recommendations

1134. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the union officials Mr Cubilla, Mr Adamson and Mr Aguilar have returned to their posts of work under normal conditions and that it keep the Committee informed in that regard.
- (b) The Committee requests the Government to send it: (1) the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice in regard to the various measures taken by the Group 4 Securicor company and the question of whether the workers held a “de facto work stoppage”; (2) specific information in regard to the alleged anti-union nature of the dozens of dismissals that occurred during the restructuring of the Group 4 Securicor company with a view, according to the allegations, of weakening the union, as well as any judgement which the courts may have handed down in relation to those dismissals; and (3) information on whether the trade union organizations affected and the dismissed trade union leaders have instituted additional judicial action.
- (c) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the relevant legislation in regard to check-off facilities for union members’ dues is complied with by the company.
- (d) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to send its specific observations concerning the allegations relating to: (1) the violent assault on and robbery of trade unionists exercising their right to protest in front of the company by individuals allegedly having received orders from the management to get rid of them, resulting in one worker having to be hospitalized; (2) the financial support provided by the company for the creation of a trade union; and (3) the threats of civil and penal sanctions against trade unionists having participated in peaceful demonstrations.
- (e) The Committee requests the Government to provide clarifications in regard to the alleged certification (recognition) of the trade union elections involving a very small group of dissidents from the union, to whom the company allegedly provided financial support, and to inform it whether the executive committee resulting from those elections has dislodged the one which filed the present case.
- (f) The Committee invites the Government to provide it with information on any measures taken as from November 2006 to give effect to the union’s request for the implementation of collective bargaining.