Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 373, October 2014

Case No 3036 (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) - Complaint date: 24-APR-13 - Follow-up

Allegations: Obstacles to collective bargaining between the complainant trade union and the company PETROCASA, suspension of union members and pressure on workers to give up their trade union membership

1. 547. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 24 April 2013 presented by the Union of Workers of Hydrocarbon Derivatives and Related Petrochemicals and Allied Workers in the State of Carabobo (S.T.H.P.C.S.E.C.). The complaint was supported by the Federation of Bolivarian Trade Unions of the State of Carabobo (FUSBEC) in a communication of 11 June 2013.
2. 548. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 15 May 2014.
3. 549. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 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 complainant’s allegations

1. 550. In a communication dated 24 April 2013, the S.T.H.P.C.S.E.C. alleges that, having obtained registration as a trade union organization on 5 August 2008, it submitted a draft collective agreement to the labour inspectorate on 27 January 2009 to be negotiated with the public enterprise, PETROCASA, so that the economic and budgetary study provided for in legislation could be carried out. Since then, the collective bargaining process has not been launched. Since 31 May 2010, the pretext given by the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour (the complainant trade union attaches a communication with that date) is that “the Commander and President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has intervened so that no ministry, institute, enterprise or foundation of the National Executive is authorized to sign collective agreements”; this “must be dealt with directly with the Commander and President or through the Executive Vice-President of the Republic for approval”.
2. 551. The complainant organization also alleges that, as a result of intimidation by the administration, workers have given up their membership, and it attaches a list of workers that appears in a ministry communication dated 5 August 2008, relating to eight resignations of membership in January 2008. The complainant adds that there were further resignations of members for the same reason in the second half of 2012.
3. 552. The complainant also alleges that on 5 July 2012 it organized a peaceful protest on the company’s premises concerning various labour-related irregularities, including the need for wage improvements in the context of a collective agreement, and the suspension of two trade union delegates who cannot perform their duties although they continue to receive their wages.
4. 553. The complainant adds that the National Guard attacked the workers during this protest, inflicting blows and broken bones, for which reason criminal proceedings have been brought before the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Since then, entry into the enterprise has been prohibited for numerous workers (a list of 75 names was sent; the total number of workers in the company is 1,200 according to the allegations).

B. The Government’s reply

1. 554. In a communication dated 15 May 2014, the Government states, in relation to the commencement of negotiations on the collective labour agreement presented by the complainants, that the draft was accepted and is pending receipt of the mandatory report from the competent authority, so as to meet the economic requirement, in accordance with the Basic Labour Act, so that the commitments made during the negotiation can be honoured. The Government adds that the labour inspectorate of Guacara, State of Carabobo, nevertheless reported that at the many meetings it has held with the workers from the enterprise, they have made no reference to the collective agreement in question.
2. 555. With regard to the protection of the suspended workers, the Government reports the decision that they should be reinstated in their posts, without payment of the wages due, as it was clear that the workers had continued to receive their wages.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 556. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant organization alleges difficulties and delays over a number of years in the collective bargaining process with the enterprise PETROCASA; workers giving up their union membership as a result of intimidation by the enterprise management; the suspension from duty of two workers who were trade union delegates, although they continue to receive their wages; and attacks by the National Guard against workers during a peaceful trade union protest on the premises of the enterprise.
2. 557. With regard to the alleged difficulties and excessive delays over a number of years in the collective bargaining process with the enterprise, the Committee notes that the Government states that the draft collective agreement was approved and is pending receipt of the mandatory economic report by the competent authority provided for in the legislation, and also that the local labour inspectorate has reported that the workers have not referred to the collective agreement in the numerous meetings it has held with them.
3. 558. The Committee regrets to observe that, according to the allegations, the draft collective agreement was submitted to the labour authorities on 27 January 2009 precisely so that the corresponding economic report could be prepared and that the process has stalled since then due to instructions making it compulsory for the President or Vice-President of the Republic to give their approval. The Committee observes from the allegations and the information provided by the Government that more than five years later the economic study in question has still not been completed and that collective bargaining has not taken place. The Committee reminds the Government that under Article 4 of Convention No. 98, it is under the obligation to promote collective bargaining and firmly requests it to take the necessary measures without delay so that the parties can begin negotiating a collective agreement and to keep it informed in this regard.
4. 559. With regard to the allegation relating to workers giving up their trade union membership as a result of intimidation by the management, the Committee notes that the complainant union has presented a list of eight workers that appears in a communication by the Ministry of Popular Power for Labour, dated 5 August 2008, relating to eight resignations of membership in January 2008, and also that, according to the trade union, there were further resignations of membership for the same reason in the second half of 2012. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent its observations on these allegations. It emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations and requests the Government to conduct an investigation and to keep it informed of the outcome.
5. 560. With reference to the allegations relating to the suspension of two trade union delegates who are unable to perform their professional duties, although they continue to receive their wages, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that their reinstatement was ordered, and its confirmation, as indicated in the allegations, that they have continued to receive their wages.
6. 561. Finally, with regard to the alleged acts of violence by the National Guard (inflicting blows and broken bones) against workers who, according to the complainant union, participated on 5 July 2012 in a peaceful trade union protest on the premises of the enterprise, the Committee regrets that the Government has not sent any information on these allegations. The Committee regrets any acts of violence that may have been committed and observes the indication by the complainant organization that it submitted a criminal complaint to the Office of the Public Prosecutor. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the complaint.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 562. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee regrets the excessive delay of more than five years in the collective bargaining process between the complainant trade union and the enterprise due to the failure of the authorities to carry out the economic budgetary study. The Committee reminds the Government that it is under the obligation to promote collective bargaining and firmly requests it to take the necessary measures without delay so that the parties can begin negotiating a collective agreement, and to keep it informed in that regard.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the criminal complaint presented to the Office of the Public Prosecutor relating to the alleged acts of violence by the National Guard against workers who, according to the complainant trade union, participated on 5 July 2012 in a peaceful trade union protest on the premises of the enterprise against a number of labour-related irregularities.