Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 360, Junio 2011

Caso núm. 2658 (Colombia) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 04-JUN-08 - Cerrado

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 33. The Committee examined this case at its meeting in November 2009. On that occasion, noting that, according to the company’s statements, there was an agreement, signed in 1997 between the National Association of Telephone and Communications Engineers (ATELCA) and the Bogotá Telecommunications Enterprise (ETB) for the period
2. 1997–2000, which foresaw specific guidelines for wage increases and which, according to the company, remained in force, the Committee considered that the extension to ATELCA’s members of the wage clauses of the 2006 agreement between the company and the primary union was a matter for interpretation which had to be settled in accordance with the rules and criteria of national legislation. The Committee recalled, moreover, that the complainant had the right under national legislation to denounce the agreement signed in 1997 if it considered it to be prejudicial. Bearing in mind that the matter was under consideration by the Coordinator of Inspection and Monitoring of the Territorial Directorate of Cundinamarca, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of the final outcome of the ongoing administrative proceedings [see the 355th Report, para. 607].
3. 34. In its communication of 12 May 2010, ATELCA takes issue with the Government’s reply, which in the complainant’s view does not give a true explanation of the facts and disregards the fact that the company ETB usurped ATELCA’s representative authority by bargaining collectively, without its authorization, with the other two trade union organizations.
4. 35. In its communication of 21 December 2010, the Government states that the following administrative proceedings have been initiated against the ETB for failure to implement the collective labour agreement concluded with SINTRATELEFONOS: (1) in a written communication dated 6 September 2006 (No. 536459), ATELCA complains of the violation of the fifth clause of the 1984 collective agreement; (2) through an order dated 14 September 2006, the third labour inspectorate was entrusted with the administrative investigation; (3) through resolution No. 03281 dated 14 February 2010, the relevant procedure having been exhausted, a legal and economic dispute was declared to exist between ATELCA and the company ETB as regards the application and interpretation of the fifth clause of the collective agreement concluded with SINTRATELEFONOS; and (4) under these circumstances, the Ministry of Social Protection cannot rule on disputes that have been referred to labour judges.
5. 36. The Committee notes this information and requests the Government to send its observations on the communication from ATELCA dated 12 May 2010 and to state whether the organization in question has initiated legal proceedings.