Allegations: Violations of the collective agreement, impediments to collective
bargaining, dismissals and anti-union practices in a company and in the Honduras Institute
of Children and the Family
- 318. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2013 meeting and
submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 368th Report, paras 521–544,
approved by the Governing Body at its 318th Session (June 2013)].
- 319. The Government sent new observations in a communication dated 28 May
2013.
- 320. Honduras 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. Previous examination of the case
A. Previous examination of the case- 321. In its previous examination of the case in June 2013, the Committee
made the following recommendation on the matter still pending [see 368th Report, para.
544]:
- The Committee regrets to observe that the Government
has not responded to the allegations concerning the company Casa Comercial Mattews
Cemcol Comercial y Similares and requests it to send its observations without
delay.
- 322. The Committee reproduces here the allegations of the complainant
organization on the matter [see 368th Report, para. 524]:
- In a
communication dated 29 August 2012, FASH and SITRACCMACCOS allege that in 2012, the
company Casa Comercial Mattews Cemcol Comercial y Similares, claiming a full
restructuring of the company – but in reality seeking to dissolve the trade union –
succeeded in getting many of the trade unionists to leave its employ and later
dismissed the many other trade union members precisely when the trade union changed
its statutes with a view to change from a company union to an industry-level union.
The complainant organizations point out that at the date of the complaint the seven
board members were the only ones that had not been dismissed; the employment
relationship of all the remaining trade unionists had been terminated. The
complainants have requested that the collective agreement be honoured, including the
terms relating to the payment of wages and to the social benefits of those who were
dismissed.
B. The Government’s reply
B. The Government’s reply- 323. In its communication dated 28 May 2013, the Government stated in
relation to the allegations of a large number of dismissals and anti-union practices in
the company Casa Comercial Mathews Cemcol Comercial y Similares, SA de CV, that, on 7
July 2012, a general inspection was conducted in the company. On that occasion, the
inspectors concluded that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of
association. The company was compelling workers to resign, in exchange for full payment
of their benefits and the signing of an individual employment contract with another,
non-unionized company belonging to the same group, with a view to dissolving the
Workers’ Union of the Casa Comercial Mathews Cemcol Comercial y Similares
(SITRACCMACCOS). The labour inspectors noted that any workers who refused were
threatened with dismissal. Over a period of 15 days, the company’s workforce was reduced
from 40 to ten workers. The Government adds that the company was notified on 18 July
2012 of the violations that had been observed, and that a further inspection was
conducted on 5 November 2012, which concluded that the violations indicated in the
notification document had not been remedied. On 30 April 2013, the General Labour
Inspectorate issued the company with a fine of 10,000 Honduran Lempiras (HNL) and an
official warning that the fine would be increased by 50 per cent in the event of a
repeat offence.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 324. In relation to the allegations still pending concerning a large
number of dismissals and anti-union practices in the company Casa Comercial Mathews
Cemcol Comercial y Similares, SA de CV, the Committee takes note of the labour
inspections to which the Government refers, which concluded that there had been a
violation of the right to freedom of association, and of the General Labour
Inspectorate’s issuance of a fine. The labour inspectors concluded that there had been a
violation of the right to freedom of association, in view of the fact that the company
was compelling workers to resign in exchange for full payment of their benefits and the
signing of an individual employment contract with another, non-unionized company
belonging to the same group, with a view to dissolving the SITRACCMACCOS. The labour
inspectors noted that any workers who refused were threatened with dismissal. Over a
period of 15 days, the company’s workforce was reduced from 40 to ten workers. The
Committee observes that the fine of HNL10,000 (US$520.29) which was imposed is the
maximum amount provided for under the legislation of Honduras. In the Committee’s view,
this does not constitute, in the present case, a sufficient remedy against the violation
of the right to freedom of association, which was established by the labour
inspectors.
- 325. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, for a number of years,
the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been
requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties for
acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are sufficiently effective and serve
as a deterrent. The Committee also notes the conclusions adopted in June 2013 by the
Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference on
legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, calling for
an effective change to the law and practice with a view to ensuring the full application
of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and for
the development of tripartite dialogue to resolve the matters concerned.
- 326. The Committee firmly expects that the Government will, in the near
future, take all the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to
amend its legislation to ensure comprehensive protection against anti-union
discrimination, in particular in case of anti-union dismissals by providing for
reinstatement in the previous position or for penalties which serve as a sufficient
deterrent against such acts. In the event that reinstatement is not possible for
objective and compelling reasons, the union members concerned should receive adequate
compensation which would represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction. The Committee
refers the legislative aspect of this case to the Committee of Experts on the
Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which is already dealing with this
matter. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to state whether the company
has appealed against the fine imposed by the labour inspectorate and whether the union
members who were dismissed or compelled to resign have lodged an appeal in this
connection. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of
any appeals lodged.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 327. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee
expresses the firm hope that the Government will, in the near future, take all the
necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend its
legislation to ensure comprehensive protection against anti-union discrimination in
the manner indicated in its conclusions.
- (b) The Committee requests the
Government to state whether the company has appealed against the fine imposed by the
labour inspectorate for violating freedom of association and whether the union
members who were dismissed or compelled to resign have lodged an appeal in this
connection. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome
of any appeals lodged.
- (c) The Committee refers the legislative aspect of
this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, which is already dealing with the matter.
