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- 40. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations of
anti-union acts, among them numerous anti-union dismissals in various public entities in
the country, at its June 2014 meeting [see 382nd Report, paras 36–42]. On that occasion,
the Committee once again: (i) requested the Government, in relation to the dismissal of
a significant number of workers following the formation of the Sindicato Gremial de
Trabajadores de la Estiba y Actividades Conexas en el Puerto Quetzal (SIGRETEACOPQ) and
the various collective disputes brought before the courts with respect to the
aforementioned public enterprise, to keep it informed of the results of the trials
pending judgment and to provide it with detailed information on the reasons for
non-compliance with the reinstatement orders that were not appealed; (ii) urged the
Government to keep it informed of any administrative or judicial decisions issued in
connection with the allegations of interference by the state-owned company in the
extraordinary general assembly of one of the company’s unions, at which union leaders
were dismissed; and (iii) urged the Government, with respect to the dismissal of 18
workers in the municipality of Comitancillo (San Marcos), to keep it informed of the
judgment handed down on this matter by the Fourth Labor and Social Security Chamber, and
to report on the reinstatement of these workers following the decision of the
Constitutional Court dated 14 November 2006.
- 41. The Government sent information on the various recommendations
mentioned above through communications dated 7 May, 21 May, 24 June, 9 September and 12
November 2015, 1 October 2021 and 3 February 2023.
- 42. Regarding the current status of the judicial proceedings related to
the collective disputes filed in the public company and stevedoring companies, the
Government informs the Committee that: (i) one of the collective disputes was admitted
for processing on 31 July 2008 and, after having been notified in August 2008, the
parties did not take any further steps, and therefore the process is pending; (ii) the
second collective dispute, admitted for processing on 25 August 2009, was filed after
the plaintiff withdrew in December 2012; and (iii) regarding the third collective
dispute, after having been admitted for processing on 19 June 2008 and the parties were
notified, they did not make any further action, so the process was filed.
- 43. In relation to the allegations presented by the SIGRETEACOPQ union
regarding anti-union dismissals in response to the creation of the aforementioned
organization, the Government submits updated and detailed information on the
reinstatement files of 19 workers provided by the Labor and Social Security Court of
First Instance of the Department of Escuintla. According to the said information, the
reinstatement of these workers, dismissed between June and July 2008, was not possible
for reasons that include: the impossibility of the notifier to access the offices of the
public company, the refusal of the referred company to accept the notification – which
resulted in the fixing of fines – or because the offices of the company were not at the
place indicated to carry out the reinstatement proceedings. According to the information
sent, in view of the aforementioned difficulties: (i) eight complainants ended up
desisting from their request for reinstatement, which resulted in the filing of their
cases in December 2012; and (ii) in the other 11 cases, the court reports that the
complainant has not taken any action with the court, nor has it made an appearance at
the same, “for which reason the reinstatement complaint is in that state”.
- 44. Regarding the allegations related to the interference of the
state-owned company in the extraordinary general assembly of one of the unions of the
state-owned company, the Government reports that the challenge filed by members of the
union against the election of the new officers in the extraordinary general assembly was
rejected by resolution on 10 June 2004, on the grounds that the procedures established
in the union’s own by-laws for challenging the alleged facts were not followed, and that
the administrative authority was not competent to resolve them. On 24 October 2005, the
request for registration of the officers of the union in question was declared
admissible. The Government informs the Committee that these resolutions are final and
that there are no court rulings on this matter. The background of the file shows that
other general assemblies were held with the election of officers without any opposition,
and the registration operations were carried out for the following periods, up to the
years 2018–20.
- 45. Regarding the dismissal of 18 workers from the municipality of
Comitancillo and their reinstatement, the Government claims that there were 12 dismissed
workers who were part of the reinstatement ruling issued by the Constitutional Court on
14 November 2006. Seven of them were reinstated in their same positions. Of the
remaining five, two received their benefits and compensation and three did not appear at
the reinstatement proceeding. The remaining six workers who were not covered by the
ruling were reinstated in their same positions and working conditions.
- 46. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the
Government concerning the situation of the 18 dismissed workers of the municipality of
Comitancillo, the collective disputes brought before the courts in relation to the
public enterprise and the allegations relating to the extraordinary general assembly of
one of its trade unions held in 2004.
- 47. With regard to the allegations of numerous dismissals in retaliation
for the creation of SIGRETEACOPQ, the Committee regrets to note that the information
provided refers to only 19 of the 59 cases in which reinstatement had been ordered in
the first instance without the public enterprise complying with the order and without
the rulings having been appealed. In addition, the Committee notes with concern that
none of the 19 reinstatement judgments for which the Government has provided information
has been complied with. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it has considered
that the basic regulations that exist in the national legislation prohibiting acts of
anti-union discrimination are inadequate when they are not accompanied by procedures to
ensure that effective protection against such acts is guaranteed [see Compilation of
decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, 2018, para. 1140].
The Committee also highlights that, if it appears that the dismissals occurred as a
result of involvement by the workers concerned in the activities of a union, the
Government must ensure that those workers are reinstated in their jobs without loss of
pay [see Compilation, para. 1169]. The Committee also recalls that the need to ensure
compliance in the country with court orders for reinstatement has been the subject of
its repeated recommendations (see Case No. 3251, 400th Report, October 2022, paragraph
379; Case No. 2948, 382nd Report, June 2017, paragraph 379; Case No. 3062, 376th Report,
October 2015, paragraph 585; Case No. 3042, 376th Report, October 2015, paragraph 568)
and continues to be the focus of the Governing Body’s attention in the context of
supporting the implementation of the 2013 road map on freedom of association (see
GB/349/INS/10, October–November 2023). The Committee notes in this regard the creation,
in 2023, of a court dedicated to hearing cases on disobedience to comply with
reinstatement orders and notes as well that the Office is undertaking a technical
diagnostic in this regard. The Committee welcomes the creation of the above-mentioned
court and expects that it will contribute to ensuring effective compliance with court
orders to reinstate workers dismissed for their union activity or affiliation.
- 48. Based on the foregoing, in light of the facts examined in this case
and having received no information from the complainant organizations since 2008, the
Committee considers that this case is closed and will not pursue its examination.
