Definitive Report - Report No 381, March 2017

1. 464. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2015 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 374th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 323rd Session (March 2015), paras 359–371].
2. 465. The Government replied to the requests for information in communications dated 21 May 2015, 31 August 2015 and 29 April 2016.
3. 466. Guatemala has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 467. At its March 2015 meeting, the Committee made the following interim recommendations regarding the allegations presented by the complainant organizations [see 374th Report, para. 371]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the complainant organization to provide information on Dr González Ruiz’s reasons for terminating her legal proceedings. In the absence of this information, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
   • (b) Regretting once again that the Government has not provided, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, any information regarding the allegations of anti-trade union dismissals in the municipality of Chimaltenango, the Committee urges the Government to inform it, as soon as possible, of the current status of the dismissal cases before the Labour, Social Welfare and Family Court of First Instance of Chimaltenango department.
   • (c) Regretting once again that the Government has not provided any information on the violation of the provisions of a collective agreement in the agricultural sector, despite the time that has elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Committee once again urges the Government to do so without delay, and invites the interested parties, including the concerned enterprise through the relevant employers’ organization, to indicate whether all outstanding issues have been resolved.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 468. In its communications of 21 May and 31 August 2015, the Government sent its observations concerning the alleged anti-trade union dismissals in the municipality of Chimaltenango, indicating that: (i) on 19 May 2015, in the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes before the ILO in the Area of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes), a mediation session was held between the municipality of Chimaltenango and the Union of Employees of the municipality; (ii) at that session, the trade union representatives indicated that, since the entry into office of the new mayor and his team, a negotiation process had enabled the reinstatement of all of the dismissed workers, except in the case of one person who had not been paid the outstanding salary since, unlike the other workers, she would not accept the payment of a percentage of the outstanding wages and instead was demanding payment of the entire amount; (iii) on 19 August 2015, the independent mediator of the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes visited Chimaltenango and held a meeting with the parties, which ended with the signing of an agreement; and (iv) through this agreement, while reiterating that one reinstated worker continues to claim payment of the entire outstanding salary amounts, the parties indicate that the claims that gave rise to this part of the complaint presented to the ILO have been settled and they request the withdrawal of the complaint from the Committee on Freedom of Association.
2. 469. In its communication of 29 April 2016, the Government sent its observations concerning the alleged violation of the provisions of the collective agreement on working conditions at the Palo Gordo Sugar Refinery (hereinafter, the sugar refinery). In this regard, the Government indicates that: (i) in 2011, the labour inspectorate office in Mazatenango Suchitepéquez consulted the members of the executive committee of the Union of Workers of the Palo Gordo Sugar Refinery concerning the employer’s alleged attempts to make employees work on 24 and 25 December, in violation of the provisions of the collective agreement; (ii) the union’s executive committee indicated that, following discussions with the employer, it had been agreed that work on 24 and 25 December would be optional and would give rise to the payment of a bonus to volunteer workers; (iii) the National Civil Police of San Antonio Suchitepéquez indicated to the Ministry of Labour that, on 24 December 2009, a manager of the refinery requested police assistance in response to being denied entry to the refinery in a threatening manner by a group of refinery workers armed with sticks and stones; (iv) the incident was followed up by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Mazatenango, which oversaw an agreement on mutual respect between the group of dissatisfied workers and the refinery’s managers; and (v) this information was communicated to the ILO in 2011 but was mistakenly sent in connection with another case before the Committee on Freedom of Association.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 470. The Committee recalls that this case concerns various allegations of anti-union acts including dismissals and acts contrary to the right to collective bargaining in both the public and private sectors.
2. 471. The Committee notes the Government’s observations regarding the alleged anti-trade union dismissals in Chimaltenango. The Committee notes especially that the Government states that: (i) the representatives of the Union of Employees of the municipality of Chimaltenango affirmed in the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes before the ILO in the Area of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes) that, since the entry into office of the new mayor and his team, a negotiation process had enabled the reinstatement of all of the dismissed workers and that an agreement would be struck on the payment of a percentage of the outstanding salaries; and (ii) in the presence of the independent mediator of the Committee for the Settlement of Disputes, on 19 August 2015, the municipality and the abovementioned union signed an agreement by which the parties acknowledged that the claims that gave rise to this part of the complaint presented to the ILO had been settled and they requested the withdrawal of the complaint from the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction and considers that this allegation does not call for further examination.
3. 472. The Committee takes note of the Government’s observations on the alleged violation of the provisions of the collective agreement on working conditions at the sugar refinery. The Committee notes especially that the Government states that: (i) according to the indications of the labour inspectorate, the executive committee of the Union of Employees of the Palo Gordo Sugar Refinery and the employer agreed on a solution regarding work on 24 and 25 December, namely that work on those dates was not compulsory and a bonus would be paid to volunteer workers; and (ii) the tension resulting from the incident of 24 December 2009 between the management of the refinery and a group of workers at the entrance to the premises led to an agreement of mutual respect being concluded at the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Committee notes this information with satisfaction and, in the absence of further information from the complainant organization, considers that this allegation does not call for further examination.
4. 473. Regarding the alleged anti-trade union transfer of the trade union leader Ms Nilda Ivette González Ruiz by a national institute, the Committee, at its last examination of the case, requested the complainant organization to provide information on the abovementioned worker’s reasons for withdrawing from the legal proceedings. As previously indicated by the Committee, and noting that the complainant organization has not provided any information in this regard, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.