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- 38. The Committee recalls that this case concerns allegations of refusal by the administrative authority to register a new trade union and dismissals by the public sector employer (the municipal authority) of the workers who formed the union. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2016 meeting, when it made the following recommendations [see 378th Report, para. 505]:
- (a) With regard to the allegations of anti-union dismissals, the Committee requests the complainant to transmit to the Government the most detailed information and evidence possible regarding the alleged dismissals and anti-union motives.
- (b) The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the application met the membership requirements at the time of registration and to carry out additional investigations in order to determine whether anti-union dismissals took place and, if so, to impose penalties that constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction, to award adequate compensation and to register the union if the workers still desire. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
- 39. In a communication of 8 February 2017, the Government provided the following information in response to recommendation (b) of the Committee. In this communication, the Government emphasizes that the refusal to register was due to the failure to meet the essential requirements as regards the minimum number of members needed to establish or form a trade union organization in the country. The Regulations on Trade Union Associations specifically provide that no fewer than 20 members are needed for the creation of a trade union, a requirement that was not met in the present case. The Government states that its actions were entirely in accordance with national law and that no fundamental right related to freedom of association was violated. The Government also states that this was demonstrated through the procedures carried out with a view to protecting the right to freedom of association: (i) on 11 February 2013, the Trade Union Associations Directorate requested the Departmental Labour Inspectorate to carry out an inspection with a view to verifying the legality of the trade union’s establishment; (ii) the inspection was carried out on 14 February 2013 and the Departmental Labour Inspectorate found that there was no violation of freedom of association or of the corresponding trade union immunity; (iii) the appeal to verify the legitimacy of the decision to deny registration was declared receivable, leading to Decision No. 76-2013 upholding the decision to refuse registration on the grounds of non-compliance with all the formalities and legal requirements; and (iv) the complainants exhausted each and every one of the procedures without success, since each of the stages was completed and resolved in accordance with the law. The Government emphasizes that it has been and will continue to be a guarantor of freedom of association and states that there have been no anti-union dismissals and that at the time of the application for registration of the trade union the requirements of the law were not met.
- 40. Furthermore, since the last examination of the case and to date, the Committee has not received any information from the complainant organization, the Confederation of Trade Union Action and Unity (CAUS).
- 41. In these circumstances, and taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee considers this case closed and will not pursue its examination.
