Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 95, 1967

Caso núm. 423 (Honduras) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 29-NOV-64 - Cerrado

1. 100. This case has already come before the Committee, at its meetings in May 1965 and May 1966, on both of which occasions it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. These reports will be found, respectively, in paragraphs 63 to 78 of the Committee's 84th Report and in paragraphs 273 to 281 of its 90th Report.

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 101. In these reports the Committee made its final recommendations with respect to some of the allegations contained in the complaint, leaving outstanding only the allegations relating to the dismissal from his post of a public servant, Professor Amilcar Salinas Rivera, which according to the complainants took place four days after he had been elected to an official post in the National Trade Union of Public Servants of Honduras (SINASEPH).
2. 102. In paragraph 280 of its 90th Report the Committee noted that the Government had as yet made no comment as to the reasons for Professor Salinas Rivera's dismissal. In these circumstances the Committee recommended the Governing Body, in paragraph 281 (b) of the same report, to request the Government to be good enough to comment on the allegation that the said professor had been dismissed from his post in the public administration on account of his trade union activities. This recommendation having been agreed to by the Governing Body, the request for information in question was transmitted to the Government.
3. 103. In its reply, dated 19 November 1966, the Government states first of all that none of the competent departments of the Ministry of Labour has any official knowledge of the establishment or Constitution of the National Trade Union of Public Servants of Honduras, and that it is therefore hardly possible to consider Professor Salinas Rivera (referred to as Rivera Salinas in the Government's letter) as a trade union official or to take account of his status as Secretary-General of the Action and Public Relations Committee of an organisation which has never acquired legal personality as either a civil or an industrial association. The Government adds that the person in question, who had been arrested on suspicion of a criminal attempt to undermine the democratic form of government, now enjoys unrestricted freedom.
4. 104. As regards the dismissal of Professor Salinas Rivera from his post in the public administration, the Government declares, in brief, that there is no objective and reliable evidence that the said dismissal was connected in any way with his election to a trade union post, about which the Government states that it has no authoritative information. There is nothing exceptional in the removal from his post of the person in question, which was decided upon on 30 October 1964; it is customary in the public administration of Honduras to terminate the appointments of public officials or employees simply at the discretion of the Minister concerned, who has full freedom to decide upon the desirability of such a step, particularly when, as in the present case, an official or employee engages in activities detrimental to the Government.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 105. The Committee recalls that in an earlier report it made recommendations to the Governing Body with respect to allegations to the effect that a group of public employees had formed a trade union (SINASEPH) on 16 August 1963, but that when they applied for registration of the union and recognition of its legal personality, the Directorate-General of Labour decided on 6 November 1963 that the documents submitted were in order, except for certain errors in wording discovered in its rules, yet failed to take steps to have the union - i.e. the complaining organisation - registered, which was one of the grounds for the complaint. Furthermore, SINASEPH attached to a subsequent communication dated 13 January 1965 copy of a letter it had received from the Minister of Labour in reply to one from the union. At all events, bearing in mind that the initial observations of the Government, analysed by the Committee in its 84th Report, appeared to indicate that for the time being public employees in Honduras do not have the right to organise, the Committee recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to " the importance of ensuring that persons employed in the service of the State should enjoy the right to establish trade unions and to register them with a view to their lawful operation, this principle being laid down in Article 2 of the Convention No. 87, ratified by Honduras, which provides that workers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation ". This recommendation was approved by the Governing Body and transmitted to the Government by letter dated 28 June 1965.
2. 106. In view of the facts recapitulated in the preceding paragraph, especially as concerns the procedure initiated by the complaining organisation in 1963 to secure registration and recognition of its legal personality, the decision which appears to have been taken in this respect in November 1963 and the letter subsequently sent by the Minister of Labour to the complaining organisation, the Committee fails to understand what is meant by the remark made by the Government in its communication of 19 November 1966 to the effect that the Government of Honduras has no official knowledge of the establishment or Constitution of SINASEPH.
3. 107. In any case, bearing in mind the background to this situation, and in particular the Committee's recommendation quoted in paragraph 105 above, the Committee considers that the fact that the complaining organisation has not been recognised nor registered does not, in the present instance, constitute a sufficient reason for rejecting the allegations which still remain outstanding.
4. 108. In regard to this last aspect of the case the point at issue is whether the dismissal of Professor Salinas Rivera was an infringement of freedom of association as the complainants maintain. The Committee notes the Government's statement to the effect that Professor Salinas Rivera was arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, although it points out that the Government has supplied no information as to whether the charge in question was upheld in court proceedings.
5. 109. In any case the Government's observations raise a much vaster issue, namely the permissibility of dismissing employees and officials in the service of the State-and, it follows therefrom, members or officials of trade union organisations formed by them for the defence of their common economic and social interests-" simply at the discretion of the Minister concerned, who has full freedom to decide upon the desirability of such a step ". Such a situation appears to be incompatible with the guarantee provided in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such protection applying more particularly in respect of acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities. In effect, as matters stand at present, even if it were possible to prove that the dismissal of a public official or employee had been decided upon on grounds of union membership or participation in union activities, such proof would have no practical value as a means of defending trade union rights.
6. 110. It would consequently appear from the observations made by the Government in its communication dated 19 November 1966 that in Honduras persons employed in the service of the State, whose right to form organisations of their own choosing is guaranteed by Article 2 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by Honduras, do not enjoy adequate protection against possible acts of discrimination in respect of their employment of the kind referred to in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), likewise ratified by Honduras, the importance of which was already brought to the attention of the Government in paragraph 78 (a) (ii) of the Committee's 84th Report, approved by the Governing Body.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 111. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to take note of the Government's statement in its communication of 19 November 1966 to the effect that it is customary in the public administration of Honduras to terminate the appointments of public officials or employees simply at the discretion of the Minister concerned, who has full freedom to decide upon the desirability of such a step, and of the fact that, in such circumstances, it would appear that officials and employees in the service of the State do not enjoy adequate protection against dismissal for reasons such as union membership or participation in lawful union activities;
   • (b) in consequence, to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which it has always attached to the principle laid down in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), ratified by Honduras, that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such protection applying more particularly in respect of acts calculated to cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union activities;
   • (c) to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Committee of the steps it has taken or proposes to take to guarantee to persons employed in the service of the State the adequate protection to which reference is made in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph;
   • (d) to bring these conclusions to the attention of the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.