Informe provisional - Informe núm. 362, Noviembre 2011

Caso núm. 2796 (Colombia) - Fecha de presentación de la queja:: 03-JUN-10 - Cerrado

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges the termination of employment of members of the National Trade Union of Health Service Workers (SINALTRAINSALUD) employed at the Hospital San José de Buga, who were members of the Associated Work Cooperative “SOLIDEZ”; pressure on workers of the company AJE Colombia SA to prevent them from joining a union and to force them to sign a collective agreement; dismissal of a number of workers following the establishment of a trade union

1. 501. The complaint is set out in two communications from the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) dated 3 and 10 June 2010.
2. 502. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 30 November 2010 and February 2011.
3. 503. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant’s allegations

• National Trade Union of Health Service Workers (SINALTRAINSALUD)
  504. 504 In its communication of 3 June 2010, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) states that on 17 February 2010, the National Trade Union of Health Service Workers (SINALTRAINSALUD) was established (by workers of the hospitals San Juan de Dios de Cali, San Rafael en El Cerrito and San José de Buga) and joined by members of cooperatives who offer their services directly to the hospitals in question, and in particular, members of the Associated Work Cooperative “SOLIDEZ”.
  505. 505 The complainant organization adds that, as a result of the above, the management of the Hospital San José de Buga started a campaign of anti-union harassment against the workers of “SOLIDEZ” who were members of the union, and applied pressure on officials of the cooperative to initiate disciplinary proceedings against workers who provided services for the hospital, San José de Buga, and in particular, against Ms María Yamileth Betancourt Serrato, a member of SINALTRAINSALUD, who was unilaterally suspended by the cooperative on the grounds that disciplinary proceedings against her had been initiated, and against Ms Ismined Barona Acevedo, a founder of SINALTRAINSALUD, who was the subject of an investigation into events that had taken place eight months before the union was established, the aim being to destabilize the union and forced the worker in question to resign her membership of it.
  506. 506 In addition, the union’s President José Ancizar Gallego Cardona, was transferred from his post as a porter at the Hospital San José de Buga to a site outside the hospital premises, with inferior working conditions, suggesting anti-union harassment in that this prevented him from maintaining contact with other workers.
• National Trade Union of the Food and Milk Industry (SINALTRALAC) and the National Trade Union of Workers of AJE Colombia EU (SINTRA AJE Colombia)
• Imposition of a collective agreement and anti-union dismissals
  507. 507 In its communication of 10 June 2010, the CGT states that on 14 February 2009, the Bogotá Section Committee of the National Trade Union of the Food and Milk Industry (SINALTRALAC) was founded by 23 workers at the Enterprise AJE Colombia SA.
  508. 508 On 16 February 2009, other workers of the enterprise in question set up the National Trade Union of Workers of AJE Colombia EU (SINTRA AJE Colombia) in accordance with the labour regulations in force. The complainant organization adds that on 19 February 2009, the company, aiming to prevent workers from joining the union, imposed a collective agreement to which workers were obliged to sign up if they wished to keep their jobs. In addition, on 5 March 2009, three production plant workers who had recently joined, Mr Luis Enrique Peña Aroca, Mr Carlos Samir Sierra Farfan and Mr Hernando López Puentes, were dismissed but subsequently reinstated by order of the judge in a decision dated 2 June 2009 because their trade union rights had been violated. The complainant organization also states that 26 workers were dismissed on 3 April 2009, following a decision to establish the Cali section of SINALTRALAC.
  509. 509 The complainant organization indicates that the workers who joined the union were subjected to intensive efforts to persuade them to renounce their membership.
  510. 510 On 6 November 2009, the company informed the following union officials of its decision to terminate their employment contracts for presumed infringements of internal regulations (consumption of intoxicating beverages), despite the fact that nothing of the kind occurred: Ms Sandra Patricia Mejia Rendon; Ms Any Dahiary Ramirez Diaz; Mr Nelson Dario Garzon Parra; and Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañeda. The complainant organization states that, on 16 February and 9 March 2009, the Bogotá subsection of SINALTRALAC and SINTRA AJE Colombia presented lists of claims to the company, a state of affairs which according to the law implies special protection for the workers in the sense that they cannot be dismissed unless there is a demonstrable cause established by the employer. Under the circumstances, the company dismissed Ms Diana Carolina Castro Mendieta, for the same reasons as for the union officials already mentioned.
• Harassment and threats against trade unionists
  511. 511 The complainant organization states that Mr Fredy Alberto Caicedo Aritizabal was dismissed because he had disregarded his own medical incapacity for work and had been seen by company managers participating in sports activities which were prohibited in his case; this, it is claimed, shows that the company harasses its workers even in their private activities.
  512. 512 In addition, on 23 March 2010, while engaged in pre-sales activity in the municipality of Soacha, Department of Cundinamarca, Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañeda, President of SINTRA AJE Colombia, was approached by three individuals in a white van. The individuals in question forced him, at gunpoint, to get into the van, and told him that if orders failed to get to the customers, it would be better for him not to return if he did not wish to disappear with the company’s goods. Faced with this, apart from informing the company’s legal representative of the company of what had happened, intervention was requested to ensure that failures to make deliveries to customers ceased, given that workers’ lives were being put at risk unnecessarily. To date, no solution has been found and the authorities have not voiced an opinion.
  513. 513 The complainant organization alleges that in the context of trade union harassment, constant summons are being issued to hearings concerning the following workers:
       • - Mr Alexander Zuluaga Camelo, cited for allegedly taking more time than usual to take telephone calls without permission;
       • - Mr Henry Cruz Correa, cited for alleged disrespect towards Mr Jonatan Bonilla when told by the latter that by opening a container of soft drink he had not complied with requirements of sale and made it impossible for the company to exchange the product;
       • - Mr Ender Buelvas Catalan, Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañedas, Mr Nelson Darío Garzón Parra, Ms Any Dahiary Ramírez Díaz and Ms Sandra Patricia Mejía, cited for allegedly selling products to customers whom they did not actually visit;
       • - Mr Omar Ospina Ramirez, cited for damaging the loading bay with the forklift, when the worker in question had requested that safety measures be put in place to prevent such accidents, since serious accidents had occurred because of the company’s inaction.
  514. 514 According to the complainant organization, during the hearings for Mr Alexander Zuluega Camelo, Mr Henry Cruz Correa, Mr Ender Buelvas Catalan and Mr Omar Ospina Ramirez, in order to ensure due process and a proper defence for workers implicated in the alleged offences, trade union delegates were allowed to attend, but were not allowed to ask questions or to demand or refute evidence.

B. The Government’s reply

• National Trade Union of Health Service Workers (SINALTRAINSALUD)
  515. 515 In a communication of February 2011, the Government states that according to the enterprise, the foundation San José de Buga has never had any relationship as an employer or any contractual relationship with Ms María Yamileth Betancourt Serrato. Ms Betancourt, according to the statements by the company and the CGT, was an associate of the cooperative “SOLIDEZ”, with which the hospital had on 1 January 2009, entered into a collaboration agreement under which the cooperative, in full independence and autonomy, had undertaken to carry out the various procedures required by the foundation; these were carried out by the cooperative’s staff under the terms of the relevant collective work agreement (attached with the company’s reply).
  516. 516 The company states that the various procedures instigated by the cooperative did not involve the foundation as they concerned autonomous internal decisions that were exclusively a matter for the cooperative. The company also states that, through the judicial proceedings to enforce rights (acción de tutela) initiated by Ms Betancourt, the Second Municipal Criminal Court upheld the rights of the plaintiff, ordered the cooperative to reinstate her, and thereby exonerated the foundation. Ms Betancourt has been reinstated in the cooperative.
  517. 517 As regards Ms Ismined Barona Acevedo, the company states that it never had any relationship with her, that she was a member of the cooperative “SOLIDEZ”, and that the company did not know why she was called to give testimony. Ms Acevedo is now a member of the associated work cooperative “contratos CTA” with which the hospital, San José de Buga has concluded a service contract for certain processes.
  518. 518 Lastly, the company states that on 26 March 2010, the cooperative decided to terminate the contract with the foundation, which had been in force since 31 July 2010.
  519. 519 The Government emphasizes that there exists legal provisions protecting the right of association which can be invoked by trade unions. That being the case, and given that the complaint makes no reference to any proceedings arising from any alleged violation of the right of association, the Government invites the complainant organization to explore all the available national legal means of redress. The Government states that these questions can be raised within the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT).
  520. 520 The Government also states that it approved a number of decrees prohibiting and preventing the misuse of temporary service agencies and cooperatives. These decrees clarify the scope of any contractual relations between temporary service agencies, cooperatives, workers and third parties hiring them, and establish the parameters in which they operate (Decrees Nos 4369 and 4588 of 2006, Act No. 1233 of 2008). The Government states that the pre-cooperatives and associated work cooperatives are non-profit making organizations pertaining to the social sector, their members being persons who are the cooperative managers and contribute directly to the cooperative’s capacity for economic, professional or intellectual activities, with the aim of producing goods, carrying out works or providing services for the benefit of its members and of the wider community (section 3 of Decree No. 4588 of 2006).
• National Trade Union of the Food and Milk Industry (SINALTRALAC) and the National Trade Union of Workers of AJE Colombia EU (SINTRA AJE Colombia)
• Imposition of a collective agreement and anti-union dismissals
  521. 521 In a communication dated 30 November 2010, the Government states that according to the company against which the complaint is made, the company was informed of the establishment of the union organizations but not of the possible membership.
  522. 522 As regards the alleged imposition of a collective agreement with a view to preventing workers from joining the union, the company states in reply, that that the collective agreement in question was the result of a list of demands presented by a group of nonunion workers. Furthermore, the workers who did not sign up to the collective agreement did not lose their jobs because in fact not all the workers are covered by it but still remain with the company (230 workers out of a total of 306 signed up to the collective agreement).
  523. 523 As regards the dismissal of Mr Luis Enrique Peña Aroca, Mr Carlos Samir Sierra Farfan and Ms Hernando López Puentes, the company states that they were reinstated by means of a legal protection ruling (fallo de tutela) of first instance. Subsequently, the criminal court of Funza district rescinded the judgement reinstating the workers. Their employment contracts were terminated as a result of a change in the internal organization of the service lift section as indicated by the judge in his ruling of 22 July 2009 (attached to the company’s reply). In view of the fact that the reinstatement order was rescinded, the company again terminated the employment contract on the assumption that no violation of freedom of association had been involved. The company emphasizes that the dismissal of the workers did not affect the union’s stability or existence, since the workers concerned made up less than 1 per cent of the total SINALTRALAC membership.
  524. 524 As regards the dismissal of 26 workers following the establishment of the Cali subsection of SINALTRALAC, the company maintains that the reason for the dismissals was not the establishment of the union, but the fact that a decision had been taken some months previously to close down a number of unproductive and loss-making sections of the company. The sales division in Cali was closed down and the employment contracts of all sales staff were terminated irrespective of their union membership. There are no grounds for describing these events as constituting harassment of workers who had decided to join the union, since many workers are currently union members (76 of SINALTRALAC and 76 of SINTRA AJE Colombia).
  525. 525 As regards the dismissal of trade union officials, Ms Sandra Patricia Mejía Rendón, Ms Any Dahiary Ramírez Díaz, Mr Nelson Darío Garzón Parra, and Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañeda, the company states that they were dismissed for serious dereliction of contractual obligations, as shown by the disciplinary proceedings which took place, and the appropriate proceedings were initiated with the courts to remove their trade union immunity. The workers were informed of that decision. The company emphasizes that the proceedings in question are still in progress and that none of the workers has yet been dismissed as the judicial proceedings have not yet been concluded.
  526. 526 As regards the dismissal of Ms Diana Carolina Castro Mendieta, who was a member of the union and whose dismissal was, according to the union, irregular, the company replies that her employment contract was terminated for sound reasons relating to serious misconduct specified in the document provided by the company, which indicates that she failed to carry out her duties and was dismissed for that reason. The actions of Ms Castro Mendieta resulted in claims being made against the company. In addition, the company states that the worker in question initiated tutela proceedings with the Funza Municipal Criminal Judge, but all her claims were dismissed in a ruling of 10 December 2009, on the grounds that there had been no infringement of freedom of association (a copy of the ruling is provided with the company’s reply).
• Harassment and threats against trade unionists
  527. 527 As regards the dismissal of Mr Fredy Alberto Caicedo Aristizabal, who can be seen in a video recording practising sports when he was supposed to be incapacitated, the company states that he was seen at a public event carrying out activities prohibited by his doctor and the recording had been made by chance, without there being any intention to place him under surveillance. It also states that his contract was terminated for irresponsible behaviour by absenting himself from the workplace without notice on 6 October 2009, which disrupted the normal functioning and administration of the company, and for disrespect to his superiors. The company points out that there are judicial mechanisms available to him to defend the rights, which in his view have been infringed, and that he has to date made no formal complaint.
  528. 528 As regards the threats against Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañeda, President of SINTRA AJE Colombia (he was allegedly approached by three individuals in a van who identified themselves as members of a group on the margins of legality, and forced to get into the vehicle with threats to the effect that if orders failed to reach customers he would “disappear”), the company states that it knows of this case and advises the worker to inform the competent authorities as it is beyond the company’s authority. It also requested to be kept informed, but maintains that the worker has thus far not made use of the available judicial or administrative means of redress.
  529. 529 As regards the allegation that there was a failure to comply with due process of law provided for in section 115 of the Substantive Labour Code, by restricting the presence of union representatives during hearings, the company states that in all such proceedings involving union members, two representatives of their trade union are allowed to attend and, are allowed to speak in order to make any statements they consider to be relevant. The company expresses surprise that the CTG considers the employer’s disciplinary authority to constitute anti-union harassment, especially where there have been manifest derelictions of duty on the part of the unionized workers concerned.
  530. 530 The Government states that it requested information from the Cundinamarca Territorial Directorate which sent a letter on behalf of the coordinator of the group for prevention, inspection, supervision and monitoring, to which was attached a copy of Resolution No. 000431 of 24 February 2010, ordering an investigation into the complaint concerning refusal to negotiate the list of demands presented by SINALTRALAC against the company AJE COLOMBIA EU. The Coordinator exonerated the company of any infringement of sections 353 and 354 of the Substantive Labour Code, as superseded by section 39(c) of Act No. 50 of 1990. This body launched an administrative inquiry into the complaint filed by the union organization, in response to which the labour authority exonerated the company as there had been consensual dialogue between the parties when they had met, including in the office of the Head of the Special Inspection and Supervisory Unit, and the parties had discussed the subject and reached agreements on a direct settlement procedure. The Ministry of Social Protection had ruled on the complaint presented by the union in the light of the refusal to negotiate, but it is not known if the union has filed any administrative, judicial or criminal complaint regarding alleged violation of the right of association.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 531. The Committee observes that in the present complaint the complainant organization alleges: (1) termination of employment of members of the National Trade Union of Health Service Workers (SINALTRAINSALUD) employed in the Hospital San José de Buga and members of the cooperative “SOLIDEZ”; and (2) pressure on workers at the company AJE Colombia SA to prevent them from joining a trade union and to make them sign a collective accord, and the dismissal of a number of workers following the establishment of a trade union.
   • National Trade Union of Health Service Workers (SINALTRAINSALUD)
2. 532. With regard to SINALTRAINSALUD, the Committee notes that according to the complainant organization: (1) the administration of the Hospital San José de Buga took steps aimed at eliminating the trade union by terminating the employment of workers who joined the said union; (2) the President of the union, Mr José Ancizar Gallego Cardona, was transferred from his post as a porter to a workplace outside hospital premises, with inferior conditions of work, suggesting anti-union harassment; and (3) the hospital management started a campaign of anti-union harassment against members of the union employed by the cooperative “SOLIDEZ”, putting pressure on managers of the cooperative to instigate disciplinary proceedings against workers who provided services for the foundation Hospital San José de Buga, and in particular, against Ms María Yamileth Betancourt Serrato, as well as Ms Ismined Barona Acevedo, founder of SINALTRAINSALUD. At the same time the Committee observes that the Government has stated in general terms that: (1) it approved a number of decrees aimed at prohibiting and preventing the misuse of temporary service agencies and associated work cooperatives, clarifying the scope of relations between the temporary service agencies, associated work cooperatives, workers and third parties hiring them, and setting the parameters in which they operate; and (2) the complaint makes no mention of any complaints or proceedings initiated in connection with alleged violations of the right of association.
3. 533. As regards the allegations concerning the transfer of the President of SINALTRAINSALUD, Mr José Ancizar Gallego Cardona, from his post as a porter at the Hospital San José de Buga to a workplace outside hospital premises, with inferior conditions of work, suggesting anti-union harassment, the Committee notes that the Government confines itself to inviting the complainant organization to make exhaustive use of the available national judicial remedies or to submit these questions to the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT). The Committee recalls that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 799]. The Committee urges the Government to send detailed observations on this allegation.
4. 534. As regards allegations of pressure by the San José de Buga foundation to persuade the associated work cooperative to initiate disciplinary proceedings against two trade unionists, the Committee notes that the hospital denies any such pressure. The Committee observes that the Government states that, according to the hospital: (1) the foundation San José de Buga has never had any employment or contractual relationship with Ms María Yamileth Betancourt Serrato, who was a member of the cooperative “SOLIDEZ” with which the hospital had signed a collaboration agreement on 1 January 2009 (attached to the company’s reply); (2) the proceedings initiated by the cooperative were initiatives in which the foundation did not intervene; (3) the foundation San José de Buga has never had any employment or contractual relationship with Ms Ismined Barona Acevedo and it is not clear why she was called on to make statements; (4) Ms Barona Acevedo is a member of the cooperative “contratos CTA”, with which the foundation Hospital San José de Buga has signed a service agreement; (5) in March 2010 the cooperative “SOLIDEZ” terminated the collaboration agreement with the Foundation and this decision entered into force in July 2010; and (6) Ms Betancourt has been reinstated in the cooperative in question in accordance with a ruling of the Second Municipal Criminal Court. The Committee notes that the allegations raise the issue of the use of cooperatives to disguise an employment relationship and recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure that associative labour cooperatives are not used to undermine genuine labour relations with the aim of prejudicing trade unions or their members [see 324th Report, Case No. 2051, para. 370].
   • National Trade Union of the Food and Milk Industry (SINALTRALAC) and the National Trade Union of Workers of AJE Colombia EU (SINTRA AJE Colombia)
   • Imposition of a collective accord and anti-union dismissals
5. 535. As regards the allegation that the company imposed a collective accord with the aim of preventing workers from joining the union, the Committee observes that according to the company, the collective accord was the result of a list of demands presented by a group of non-unionized workers, and that not all the workers have signed up to the collective accord, although they all remain employed by the company. Furthermore, the Committee notes that according to the Government, the Cundinamarca Territorial Directorate sent a copy of Resolution No. 000431 of 24 February 2010 ordering an investigation into the complaint regarding refusal to negotiate the list of demands presented by SINALTRALAC against the company, and exonerating the company on the grounds that there had been consensual dialogue between the parties when they met including in the office of the head of the special inspection and supervision unit, and the parties had discussed the subject and reached agreements on a direct settlement procedure. The Committee wishes to emphasize that the Collective Agreements Recommendation, 1951 (No. 91), emphasizes the role of workers’ organizations as one of the parties in collective bargaining; it refers to representatives of unorganized workers only when no organization exists, and that direct negotiation between the undertaking and its employees, bypassing representative organizations where these exist, might, in certain cases, be detrimental to the principle that negotiation between employers and organizations of workers should be encouraged and promoted [see Digest, op cit., paras 944 and 945]. The Committee also draws attention to the fact that the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has recalled, in its observation of 2009, the need to ensure that collective accords are not used to undermine the position of trade union organizations, and to the need to ensure the possibility in practice to conclude collective agreements with them, and requested information on the measures adopted to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of voluntary collective bargaining, in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 98, and to ensure that the conclusion of collective accords negotiated directly with the workers is only possible in the absence of a trade union and that it is not carried out in practice for anti-union purposes. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that this principle is respected at the company, and to keep it informed of any new development in that regard.
6. 536. As regards the dismissals of trade union members, Mr Luis Enrique Peña Aroca, Mr Carlos Samir Sierra Farfan and Mr Hernando López Puentes, the Committee notes that according to the company the dismissals in question – based on false accusations concerning consumption of intoxicating beverages – were in fact due to changes to the internal organization of the forklift section and did not affect the union’s stability or existence, since the workers in question made up less than 1 per cent of the total SINALTRALAC membership. The Committee notes that the workers were reinstated through a legal enforcement ruling (fallo de tutela) of first instance, and subsequently, the Funza circuit judge rescinded the ruling in question on the grounds that a more appropriate procedure was available before the Labour Judge: “The tutela proceedings do not constitute a parallel process, and the First Instance Court was therefore not authorized to enforce protection for the fundamental rights of association, equality and labour, and consequently to order the reinstatement of the plaintiff without any break in contract, as that pertains exclusively to the competence of the labour judge who must give a ruling on this point”. The Committee observes that the company confirmed, once again, the termination of the employment contracts on the assumption that there had been no violation of freedom of association. Given these considerations, the Committee wishes to emphasize that refusal of legal protection (tutela) does not in this case imply that there had been no violation of freedom of association, but rather that the competent judge to decide on the issue of reinstatement of the workers is the labour judge. In view of the divergent accounts of the complainant organization and the company regarding the cause of the dismissals, the Committee requests the Government to state whether the workers have brought a case before the labour judge.
7. 537. As regards the dismissal of 26 workers following the establishment of the Cali subsection of SINALTRALAC, the Committee notes that the company denies the anti-union nature of the dismissals and maintains that they resulted from the company’s decision to close unproductive sections, and that all the workers affected were dismissed irrespective of their union membership. Furthermore, SINALTRALAC continues to exist and some workers are still members of it.
8. 538. Lastly, as regards the dismissal of Mr Alberto Caicedo Aristizabal, the Committee observes that according to the company, the dismissal in question was due to serious misconduct (unjustified absence from work), and not for union-related reasons, and that the worker has not filed any complaint in relation to any violation of his trade union rights.
9. 539. As regards the dismissal of the trade union officials Ms Sandra Patricia Mejía Rendón, Ms Any Dahiary Ramírez Díaz, Mr Nelson Darío Garzón Parra and Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañeda, the Committee notes that proceedings were initiated to suspend these workers’ trade union immunity, and that these proceedings are now under way, so that the workers remain employed by the company and are awaiting the judicial rulings. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to communicate a copy of any rulings handed down.
10. 540. As regards the dismissal of Ms Diana Carolina Castro Mendieta, the Committee notes that according to the company, the worker in question was dismissed for serious misconduct (dispatch of orders which had not come from customers), rather than for anti-union reasons. The Committee notes that, according to the company, the Funza municipal criminal judge, who examined the tutela application filed by the worker, dismissed all her claims in a judgment of 10 December 2009, on the grounds that there had been no violation of freedom of association (a copy of the ruling was provided with the company’s reply). Consequently the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
    • Harassment and threats against trade unionists
11. 541. As regards the alleged threats against Mr John Henry Aguazaco (according to which he was approached by three individuals in a van who identified themselves as members of a group on the margins of legality and forced to get into the vehicle), the Committee notes that according to the complainant organization, the worker was threatened in terms suggesting that “if orders don’t get to the customers, you shouldn’t come back or you might disappear with the company’s goods”. The Committee also notes that according to the company: (1) once it learned of what had happened, it advised the worker to inform the competent authorities, as the matter was beyond the company’s remit; (2) it asked to be kept informed; and (3) to date, the worker has not communicated any information in this regard. The Committee invites the complainant organization to report these threats to the competent authorities, and trusts that the Government will take the necessary steps to conduct an independent investigation into these allegations and to ensure protection of the union official in question against any act of intimidation.
12. 542. Lastly, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided any information on the allegations relating to the following union members: Mr Alexander Zuluaga Camelo, Mr Henry Cruz Correa, Mr Ender Buelvas Catalan and Mr Omar Ospina Ramirez. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this regard.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 543. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) As regards the allegations regarding the transfer of the President of SINALTRAINSALUD, Mr José Ancizar Gallego Cardona, from his post as a porter at the Hospital San José de Buga to a workplace outside the hospital premises, with inferior working conditions, suggesting anti-union harassment, the Committee urges the Government to send detailed observations on this allegation.
   • (b) Recalling that, pursuant to Article 4 of Convention No. 98, the Government must guarantee that direct negotiations of collective agreements with employees are possible only in the absence of a trade union and that such negotiations should not be used in practice for anti-union purposes, the Committee requests the Government to ensure respect for this principle at the company AJE Colombia EU, and to keep it informed of new developments in this regard.
   • (c) As regards the dismissals of trade union members, Mr Luis Enrique Peña Aroca, Mr Carlos Samir Sierra Farfan and Mr Hernando López Puentes, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the workers have initiated any proceedings before the labour judge.
   • (d) As regards the dismissals of trade union officials, Ms Sandra Patricia Mejía Rendón, Ms Any Dahiary Ramírez Díaz, Mr Nelson Darío Garzón Parra, and Mr John Henry Aguazaco Castañeda, and the proceedings under way to suspend trade union immunity, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard and to communicate a copy of any court rulings handed down.
   • (e) As regards the alleged threats against union official, Mr John Henry Aguazaco, the Committee invites the complainant organization to report these threats to the competent authority, and trusts that the Government will take all the necessary measures to conduct an independent investigation into these allegations and to ensure protection of the union official in question from any act of intimidation.
   • (f) As regards the allegations concerning Mr Alexander Zuluaga Camelo, Mr Henry Cruz Correa, Mr Ender Buelvas Catalan and Mr Omar Ospina Ramírez, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on this matter.