Allegations: The complainant organization alleges that numerous anti-union acts,
including transfers and dismissals, have been carried out against officials and members of a
trade union in a public hospital, and that labour relations roundtables have been set up in
the public health sector with representatives of non-unionized workers, with the aim of
undermining dialogue and negotiations with the trade unions
- 291. The complaint was presented by the Trade Union Coordinating Body of
El Salvador in communications dated 7 September and 5 November 2015.
- 292. The Government of El Salvador sent its observations on the
allegations in two communications, dated 31 October 2016 and 27 September 2019.
- 293. El Salvador 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), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No.
135), the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151), and the
Collective Bargaining Convention, 1981 (No. 154).
A. The complainant’s allegations
A. The complainant’s allegations- 294. In its communication dated 7 September 2015, the Trade Union
Coordinating Body of El Salvador states that it is presenting a complaint concerning the
violation of the ILO Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining
ratified by El Salvador on the grounds of numerous anti-union acts carried out against
the Trade Union of Doctors of Rosales Hospital (SIMEHR), a hospital that is under the
remit of the Ministry of Health (MINSAL).
- 295. The complainant organization states that the SIMEHR, an organization
that was established in 2009, submitted on multiple occasions requests for compliance
with Article 7 of Convention No. 151 in order to participate in the determination of the
terms and conditions of employment of doctors at Rosales Hospital, which the SIMEHR
considers to be abysmal, inhuman and inadequate.
- 296. The SIMEHR states that, after it filed a series of complaints with a
view to achieving a safe working environment with the necessary resources to provide
adequate care for the hospital’s patients, the director took retaliatory measures.
According to the complainant, the aim of the measures was to harass and violate the
rights of the trade union and its members, all under the complacent eye of the senior
authorities of MINSAL and the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare.
- 297. In this respect, the complainant organization alleges that the
director of Rosales Hospital took a series of anti-union measures in 2010 and 2011,
namely: (i) the arbitrary transfer of three doctors, who were in charge of the teaching
units and who were also union officials; (ii) the workplace harassment and transfer of
the former head of pathology, a union member, through the dissemination of falsified
audit reports; (iii) labour rights violations and psychological harassment against a
specialist in the pathology department, Dr Genoveva Ochoa, a union member, who, as a
result, asked to be transferred to another hospital; and (iv) labour rights violations
against the head of the research unit at Rosales Hospital, a union member, by forcing
her immediate superior to adjust her performance appraisal downwards in retaliation for
her participation in a protest against him.
- 298. The complainant organization further alleges that the director of
Rosales Hospital committed a series of violations of the trade union rights of officials
and members of the union in 2012 and 2013, namely: (i) the unfair and arbitrary
dismissal of union members, including the head of the intensive care unit and the head
of otorhinolaryngology; (ii) the violation of the rights of Dr Alcides Gómez Hernández,
the general secretary of the union, by issuing him with a warning in 2012 for reasons
that he was never able to establish and by denying him the right to defence in the
disciplinary proceedings; (iii) unwarranted searches of union members’ belongings
following a complaint in 2012 that supplies had gone missing; (iv) the suspension of
union member Dr Guillermo Reyes in 2012 for refusing a police search, without him being
given the opportunity to defend himself; and (vi) the refusal to grant union leave to
union officials.
- 299. The organization also alleges that, in June 2014, a system for
clocking in and out of the workplace exclusively through the use of biometric markers
was unilaterally imposed, without the trade union being consulted, which was perceived
to be an act of repression. The complainant organization further alleges that this
practice goes against the grain of specialized medical care and trade union rights, as
it contributes to the mechanization of medical care work. The complainant also states
that all these measures are part of an ongoing pattern of mistreatment, workplace
harassment, and supply and equipment shortages. The complainant organization states
that, since the appointment of Dr Mauricio Ventura as director of Rosales Hospital, the
SIMEHR has tried unsuccessfully to resolve these labour issues with the hospital
director and with the MINSAL authorities. To this end, according to the complainant
organization, it held meetings with several senior officials from MINSAL and from
Rosales Hospital, without managing to find a solution to the labour issues being
faced.
- 300. The complainant organization alleges that the very tense situation
created by these labour issues led to a decision by the Assembly of Doctors on 9
September 2014 to reduce outpatient work, with the exception of certain critical
specialities. The complainant organization states that it was only after the adoption of
this measure that the authorities of MINSAL and the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman
(PDDH) decided to take action in this regard. Furthermore, the complainant organization
states that, although the PDDH set up a table for dialogue and negotiation between the
authorities of MINSAL and the medical specialists of Rosales Hospital, represented by
the SIMEHR, no progress has been made, and it attributes this lack of progress to the
political alignment of the PDDH and the personal ambitions of the Human Rights
Ombudsman.
- 301. The complainant organization states that, on 17 September 2014, it
was notified of a decision handed down by the First Labour Court of San Salvador
declaring the strike staged by the SIMEHR since 9 September 2014 to be unlawful and
ordering the strikers to return to their respective posts. The complainant organization
also states that, after an appeal brought before the same court was rejected, the SIMEHR
filed, on 20 October 2014, an application for amparo (protection of constitutional
rights) before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which, at the
time of the presentation of the complaint in September 2015, had not been settled. The
complainant organization goes on to state that it was obliged to file an application for
amparo with the Supreme Court because, under section 565 of the Labour Code, decisions
concerning the determination of a strike or work stoppage are not open to appeal. The
complainant alleges that this provision is contrary to international labour
standards.
- 302. The complainant organization further alleges that the dispute
continued to escalate as a result of the retaliatory measures taken by the authorities
of Rosales Hospital, namely: (i) wage deductions of 40 per cent were applied in July
2014, even before the reduction of work began; (ii) wage deductions of 100 per cent were
applied in August 2014 and of over 100 per cent were applied in September and October
2014 and from January to May 2015; (iii) criminal complaints were filed on 10 September
2014, in other words the day after the reduction of work began, by the hospital director
with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic against the union’s executive
committee and 42 specialist doctors who were also union members, for the alleged
offences of denial of health care (section 176 of the Criminal Code) and breach of duty
(section 231 of the Criminal Code); (iv) complaints were filed with the First Labour
Court by the hospital director against 82 specialist doctors, calling for the strike
consisting of a reduction of work to be declared unlawful, with the First Labour Court
declaring it unlawful on 17 September 2014; (v) acts of harassment were carried out by
members of the political police on 14, 15 and 16 September 2014, who went to the homes
of certain union members without showing identification to inform them that they were
under investigation, with the aim of intimidating them; (vi) a one-day suspension from
work was imposed on 21 chief medical specialists, the majority of whom are members of
the union and its executive committee; and (vii) disciplinary proceedings with threats
of dismissal were initiated against union officials and anyone who did not obey the
orders of the hospital director. Furthermore, the complainant organization alleges that,
from June 2014 until at least the date on which this complaint was presented (7
September 2015), the union members who participated in the strike have not been paid
their wages and have not received social benefits or social security.
- 303. The complainant also alleges that, in June 2015, the director of
Rosales Hospital filed an action with the First Civil and Commercial Court to dismiss
union officials and union members, in violation of the ILO Conventions ratified by El
Salvador.
- 304. In its communication dated 11 November 2015, the complainant
organization alleges that the instruction document concerning the establishment and
functioning of the labour relations roundtables of MINSAL (hereinafter “the instruction
document”), which was adopted in August 2015 and which provides for the establishment of
a series of labour relations roundtables at the national, regional and local levels
within El Salvador’s public health system, as well as in every public hospital,
constitutes a clear violation of freedom of association, rather than fulfilling its
stated purpose of improving the work climate and environment. The complainant
organization states in particular that: (i) according to the recitals of the instruction
document, labour relations roundtables are appropriate forums and mechanisms for
dialogue, conciliation and agreement so that the issues that exist in every institution
in respect of labour relations and the improvement of services can be addressed in a
timely way; (ii) section 1 of the instruction document provides that the document will
“also govern the procedure for the adoption of agreements and recommendations and the
formal conditions for ensuring their validity and effective application”; (iii)
according to section 5 of the instruction document, the national labour relations
roundtable shall be composed of: one delegate from the Ministerial Office; one delegate
from the Office of the Deputy Minister for Health Policies; one delegate from the Office
of the Deputy Minister for Health Services; one delegate from the Office of General
Operations Management; one Ministerial Legal Adviser; one delegate from every national
trade union duly accredited by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare; one delegate
from every national association of employees or workers duly accredited by the Ministry
of the Interior; and one or more delegates for employees that do not belong to a trade
union organization, so that there is one such delegate for every delegate from a trade
union or workers’ association; and (iv) according to section 17 of the instruction
document, the roundtable agendas are set unilaterally, as a number of requirements are
imposed regarding the items that may be put forward by the representatives of the
roundtables, such as the requirement that the items must benefit administrative
management in the interests of the users of the network of public health establishments
or the employees of these establishments, and must be viable from a technical and
financial point of view.
- 305. The complainant organization, after claiming that the instruction
document was adopted without prior consultation with the trade unions, alleges that this
instrument: (i) encourages the participation of representatives of workers who are not
union members, to the detriment of trade unions; and (ii) violates the bipartite
bargaining process by allowing the participation of elected representatives under
employer control with a view to obtaining the majority of votes, thereby undermining the
trade union’s participation in the determination of terms and conditions of employment
and in the settlement of disputes. The complainant organization concludes by stating
that labour relations roundtables are a mechanism that will facilitate favouritism or
hostility towards certain trade union organizations and undue interference by the public
authorities in trade union activities.
B. Information submitted by the Government
B. Information submitted by the Government- 306. In its communication dated 31 October 2016, the Government provides
its observations on the complainant organization’s allegations concerning the anti-union
nature of the instruction document, stating that: (i) the aim is simply to establish
forums and mechanisms that encourage dialogue, conciliation and agreement, and there is
therefore no violation of trade union rights; (ii) the instruction document is not a law
or a formal legislative act, but an instrument providing administrative support; and
(iii) it neither replaces nor hinders dialogue with trade unions – rather, it encourages
trade union activity and strengthens protection against acts of interference. The
Government adds that: (i) labour relations roundtables provide an opportunity to discuss
problems and find solutions and in no way do they restrict trade union activity or
prevent bipartite bargaining; (ii) the Government is not engaged in any collective
bargaining and it refutes the complainant’s allegations in that regard; and (iii) the
Government encourages the inclusion of non-unionized workers in labour relations
roundtables in accordance with the legislation in force.
- 307. In its communication of 27 September 2019, the Government presents
its observations on the allegations that the director of Rosales Hospital carried out
violation of rights and acts of repression against the SIMEHR trade union and its
members, depriving them of their wages, social security, pension funds, social and
economic benefits and union dues. In this respect, the Government states that such
allegations are false and lack any factual and legal basis. Likewise, with regard to the
complainant’s allegations of deplorable and unsafe conditions in Rosales Hospital,
including equipment and medicine shortages, while the Government acknowledges that
resources are insufficient, it emphasizes that significant improvements have been made
under the leadership of Dr Mauricio Ventura, the hospital director, such as, for
example, a reduction in waiting times and a lower rate of medical supply shortages.
- 308. The Government states that the complainant organization’s
allegations stem from the fact that the administrative authorities had launched
administrative proceedings against staff members of Rosales Hospital for having refused
to comply with the institutional regulations imposed on them concerning the clocking in
and out of staff by biometric means. The Government states that the financial impact on
their wages, their social security and their pension funds is due to the deductions that
had to be made when they refused to comply with the requirement to register their
attendance at work using a biometric clocking system. The Government states that this
refusal led to findings of administrative misconduct that were handled in accordance
with due process. The Government specifies that the findings of administrative
misconduct also applied to union members, as the trade union guarantees they enjoy are
not a shield that exempts them from their responsibilities or from following due
process.
- 309. With regard to the complainant organization's allegations that no
headway has been made in the talks with the authorities of MINSAL and the PDDH aimed at
establishing a dialogue and negotiation table, and that this has led to increased
retaliation against the union's members and its executive committee through various
anti-union acts, the Government states that, since the suspension of the meetings with
the PDDH, no decision at all has been handed down against the director of Rosales
Hospital for arbitrary acts, abuse of authority or unfair deductions. It follows, in the
Government's view, that the institution responsible for the protection of labour rights
investigated the allegations made by the complainant and found insufficient evidence and
the PDDH has not requested further information on these cases either.
- 310. The Government states that ensuring respect for the rights of users
is a priority in El Salvador’s public administration and that, with a view to improving
the health services offered to its users, Rosales Hospital has set up its own
institutional regulatory framework. The Government also states that the supervisory body
that is competent to determine compliance with this regulatory framework is the Court of
Auditors of the Republic, which assesses all activities, and if an unlawful wage
deduction is detected, the Court will be responsible for ensuring the reimbursement of
the money that has been deducted arbitrarily.
- 311. The Government reiterates once again that the issues at Rosales
Hospital arose as a result of the decision by the hospital authorities that, as of July
2014, medical staff would have to register their attendance at work using a biometric
system, in accordance with the provisions of section 35 of the regulations setting out
the hospital’s specific technical standards for internal oversight.
- 312. The Government states that it was because of the refusal by several
doctors to register their attendance using the biometric system when it was introduced
in June 2014 that a decision was taken to apply the relevant deductions to certain
unionized doctors. The Government further states that the relevant evidence was
submitted to the labour courts and arguments were put forward demonstrating that the
doctors’ claims were false, since, according to the documentary evidence submitted to
the courts, all the procedures under the institutional regulations had been followed in
making the deductions. The Government also provides the numbers of the cases brought
before the Civil Service Courts, which contain details of the procedures followed in
making the deductions.
- 313. The Government states that the fact that some staff members at
Rosales Hospital failed to apply the provisions of the regulatory framework is
demonstrated by the final decision handed down by the Government Ethics Court on 3
October 2018, a copy of which is annexed to its communication. In this decision, 16
doctors were found to be responsible for failing to comply with section 6(d) of the
Government Ethics Act, which prohibits the holding of two or more incompatible posts in
the public sector.
- 314. With regard to the allegations concerning the written warnings given
to union members, the Government explains that the issuance of such warnings is provided
for in section 43 of the Civil Service Act. The Government adds that the power and the
competence to issue this type of warning lies with the immediate superiors, as is
provided for in the Act, and that such warnings are a tool to prevent anarchy from a
work and administrative point of view. The Government also states that only the
immediate superior can issue a written warning and that the steps leading to the
issuance of the warnings were approved by the Civil Service Court in the corresponding
proceedings. Specifically with regard to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the
hospital director against Dr Alcides Gómez Hernández, the general secretary of the
SIMEHR union, and the acts of discrimination against him, the Government states that, in
this case, a court decision has already been handed down in favour of Rosales Hospital,
establishing that the proceedings were lawful and that the relevant institutional
regulations were duly applied.
- 315. With regard to the complainant’s allegations concerning the
arbitrary deductions of wages, social security, pension funds and economic and social
benefits that were applied to union officials and union members, the Government states
that, in the various court cases that have been brought against the director of Rosales
Hospital, decisions have been handed down that are favourable to the interests of the
institution.
- 316. With regard to the complainant’s allegations that union leave has
not been granted to union members, the Government states that requests for such leave
are processed by MINSAL and that the trade unions that have requested such leave have
been granted it without any problem. However, the Government states that the SIMEHR has
not taken any steps to request such leave and it cannot provide any evidence of a
decision rejecting a request for time off for union purposes as it has never made such a
request. Furthermore, the Government states that the members of the complainant
organization hold their general assemblies on days and at the time of their own choosing
and do not request permission from their immediate supervisors to be absent from their
workplaces.
- 317. With regard to the establishment of labour relations roundtables in
the context of Rosales Hospital, the Government states that the majority of the
hospital’s employees are not members of the SIMEHR, which has a membership of 69
doctors, whereas the hospital has a total of 2,007 public servants. The Government adds
that the workers who are not union members have their own mechanism for election to and
participation in the establishment of labour relations roundtables. The Government also
states that Rosales Hospital is merely a user of the instruction document in question
and was not involved in drafting it.
- 318. With regard to the dismissal action brought by the director of
Rosales Hospital against union members and union officials, the Government alleges that
all public servants possess the constitutional power to bring legal action when they
detect a possible violation and that failure to do so constitutes a breach of that
constitutional duty. Therefore, according to the Government, bringing legal proceedings
against union members and union officials does not in itself constitute a violation of
the labour rights of union members, as, in the Government’s view, trade union membership
does not mean that union members are free not to meet their work obligations.
- 319. With regard to the complainant’s allegation concerning the
complaints of manifest injustice filed with the Civil Service Court, the Government
states that the Court reported that, in 2013, 2014 and 2015, it received 45 complaints
of manifest injustice from doctors working at Rosales Hospital and that the proceedings
had been completed, according to a report submitted by the Civil Service Court at the
time the Government submitted the present communication.
- 320. With regard to union members not being paid their wages as from July
2015 because of their participation in the strike, the Government states that the court
hearing the case ruled that the deductions were applied to the employees in accordance
with the legal provisions and that the administrative process allowing for the
non-payment of these wages was carried out in compliance with the guarantees of due
process. Accordingly, the court found that the manifest injustice action brought by the
union members was without merit.
- 321. With regard to the dismissal action brought in June 2015 against
union officials and union members, the Government states that this action has now been
closed and filed, as the First Civil and Commercial Court before which the action was
brought found that it had no jurisdiction and the action was dismissed. The Government
also states that the fact that the hospital director initiated the dismissal action does
not in itself mean that any trade union rights were violated, but rather that the
hospital director applied the principle of legality enshrined in article 86 of the
Constitution of El Salvador.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 322. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainant
organization alleges that a series of anti-union acts were committed between 2010 and
2015 by a public hospital against the officials and members of a trade union of doctors,
the SIMEHR, before and after a strike was staged in September 2014 demanding the
modification of the system for monitoring the attendance of medical staff by means of
biometric markers that was introduced in the hospital in June 2014. The Committee notes
that the complainant organization also alleges that the instruction document adopted in
August 2015, which provides for equal representation between trade union representatives
and representatives of non-unionized workers, facilitates interference by the public
authorities in the representation of workers and undermines the rights of trade union
organizations, including in respect of collective bargaining.
- 323. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government states that:
(i) the acts against the officials and members of the SIMEHR alleged by the complainant
organization are not anti-union in nature but are the result of the failure by some
doctors to apply the hospital’s regulations, notably the system for monitoring
attendance using biometric markers; (ii) the strike staged in September 2014 was
declared unlawful by the courts, which, in accordance with the regulations in force,
carried a number of implications for the doctors who took part in it; and (iii) the
Ministry of Health’s instruction document of August 2015 creating labour relations
roundtables encourages consultation with both the trade unions in the health sector and
the representatives of non-unionized workers and therefore does not undermine dialogue
with the trade unions.
- 324. The Committee notes that the complainant organization alleges first
of all that, between 2010 and 2013, a series of anti-union acts were carried out against
the officials and members of the SIMEHR, including, inter alia: (i) the arbitrary
transfer of three doctors who were union officials and of two others who were members of
the union; (ii) the issuance of unfounded warnings to Dr Alcides Gómez Hernández, the
general secretary of the union, without giving him the opportunity to defend himself;
(iii) the dismissal of the head of the intensive care unit and the head of
otorhinolaryngology; (iv) the suspension of Dr Guillermo Reyes, a union member, in 2012,
for having refused a police search; and (v) the denial of requests for union leave made
under the instruction document and to the director of Rosales Hospital in order to
enable officials of the SIMEHR to carry out their union activities. With regard to this
first set of allegations, the Committee notes that the Government states that: (i)
having the status of a trade union official does not constitute a shield that exempts
that person from responsibility for any misconduct that they might commit; (ii) the
disciplinary proceedings against the general secretary of the trade union were the
subject of legal action and concluded with a decision in favour of Rosales Hospital,
which found that the disciplinary proceedings were in accordance with the law and that
the institutional regulations were duly applied; and (iii) although trade union leave
can be requested without any problem under the instruction document, the SIMEHR has not
requested such leave, which has not prevented union members from holding assemblies
without the permission of their superiors.
- 325. With regard to the granting of trade union leave to the SIMEHR, the
Committee, while noting the differing versions of events given by the parties, takes
note of the document provided by the Government containing a notification addressed to
the complainant organization, dated 5 February 2016, in which its representatives are
invited to a second meeting for the granting of trade union leave. On the basis of the
foregoing, the Committee trusts that the SIMEHR is able to enjoy the trade union leave
to which it is entitled and it will therefore not pursue the examination of this
allegation.
- 326. With regard to the allegations concerning a series of specific acts
that were carried out between 2010 and 2013 against certain officials and members of the
SIMEHR, the Committee, while taking due note of the Government’s reply concerning the
confirmation by the courts of the lawfulness of the warning issued to the general
secretary of the trade union, observes that: (i) neither the reference number nor the
text of the above-mentioned court decision has been provided; and (ii) the Government
has not provided a response concerning the other specific acts alleged by the
complainant organization. Recalling that the Government is responsible for preventing
all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union
discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be
prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Compilation of
decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, sixth edition, para. 1138], the
Committee requests the Government to ensure that, from now on, any allegations of
anti-union acts in the hospital in question are promptly followed up by effective
investigations by the competent authorities so as to guarantee full respect for freedom
of association within the hospital.
- 327. The Committee also notes that the complainant organization also
alleges that, due to the opposition of the SIMEHR to the unilateral implementation in
June 2014 of a biometric attendance monitoring system and the impossibility of engaging
in a constructive dialogue with the hospital management and the Office of the Human
Rights Ombudsman, the trade union was forced to carry out a partial work stoppage as
from 9 September 2014. The Committee notes that the complainant organization states that
the dispute over biometric attendance monitoring led to an escalation of anti-union acts
against the SIMEHR, alleging in particular that: (i) union members were subject to a
wage deduction of 40 per cent in July 2014; (ii) wage deductions of 100 per cent were
imposed in August 2014 and of more than 100 per cent in September and October 2014 and
from January to May 2015; (iii) in retaliation for the reduction of work, the hospital
director filed criminal complaints against the union’s executive committee and 42
specialist doctors, who are themselves members of the union, as well as complaints
before the First Labour Court against 82 specialist doctors; (iv) a total of 21 chief
medical specialists, the majority of whom are also members of the union and its
executive committee, were suspended from work for one day; (v) the doctors who
participated in the work stoppage were harassed by members of the political police on
14, 15 and 16 September 2014, with the aim of intimidating them; and (vi) in June 2015,
disciplinary proceedings with threats of dismissal were initiated against union
officials and all those who did not obey the orders of the hospital director.
- 328. The Committee notes that the complainant organization adds that the
work stoppage was declared unlawful by a decision of the First Labour Court of 17
September 2014, that the Labour Code provides that the Court’s decision is not open to
appeal and that the amparo action brought in this respect before the Supreme Court was
pending at the time of submission of the present complaint.
- 329. The Committee notes that, for its part, the Government states that:
(i) the financial impact on wages, social security and pension funds mentioned in the
complaint is due to the deductions that had to be applied to staff members who refused
to comply with the requirement to register their attendance at work using the biometric
clocking system; (ii) this refusal led to findings of administrative misconduct against
staff, whether union members or not, which were handled in accordance with due process;
(iii) in the different court cases that have been brought against the director of
Rosales Hospital with respect to the aforementioned deductions, decisions have been
handed down that are favourable to the interests of the institution; (iv) in its final
decision of 3 October 2018, the Government Ethics Court found that 16 doctors at the
hospital were responsible for failing to comply with the Government Ethics Act, which
prohibits the holding of two or more incompatible posts in the public sector; (v) a
court heard the case concerning the non-payment of the wages of union members for having
participated in the strike and ruled that the deductions were applied to the employees
in accordance with the legal provisions and that the administrative process allowing for
the non-payment of these wages was carried out in compliance with the guarantees of due
process; and (vi) the dismissal action brought in June 2015 against union officials and
union members has now been closed and filed, as the First Civil and Commercial Court
before which the action was brought declared itself incompetent and the action was
dismissed. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the parties in
relation to the dispute arising from the introduction in June 2014 of the biometric
monitoring of staff attendance. The Committee wishes to recall first of all that its
mandate consists in determining whether any given legislation or practice complies with
the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining laid down in the
relevant Conventions [see Compilation, para. 9]. It is therefore not within its
competence to examine the merits and suitability of the biometric attendance monitoring
system introduced by the hospital, as it is not alleged that such a system had the
purpose or effect of infringing freedom of association. Noting, however, that the
Government does not object to the allegation that the new attendance monitoring system
was introduced unilaterally, the Committee emphasizes that it has recalled the
importance of consulting all trade union organizations concerned on matters affecting
their interests or those of their members [see Compilation, para. 1521]. The Committee
therefore invites the Government to take the necessary steps to establish a framework
for constructive dialogue between the trade unions present in the hospital and the
hospital management and the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman on matters affecting
their interests or those of their members.
- 330. With regard to the deductions of wages after the entry into force of
the attendance monitoring system and prior to the strike action, while regretting that
it has not received the text of the rulings referred to by the Government, the Committee
trusts that these rulings have ensured that the deductions have been applied
objectively, irrespective of the trade union membership or union activity of the
hospital workers.
- 331. With regard to the partial strike staged from 9 July 2014, the
Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the essential means through which
workers and their organizations may promote and defend their economic and social
interests [see Compilation, para. 753]. Nevertheless, the Committee recalls that it has
considered that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public
service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2)
in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the
interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or
part of the population) [see Compilation, para. 830] and that, in this regard, it has
considered that the hospital sector may be considered to be an essential service [see
Compilation, para. 840]. Lastly, the Committee recalls that salary deductions for days
of strike give rise to no objection from the point of view of freedom of association
principles [see Compilation, para. 942]. With regard to the allegation that court
decisions on the lawfulness of a strike cannot be challenged, the Committee notes that
the SIMEHR did file an application for amparo before the Constitutional Chamber of the
Supreme Court of Justice and trusts that this matter has been resolved promptly and in
conformity with the principles of freedom of association.
- 332. With regard to the complainant organization’s allegations concerning
a series of reprisals following the strike action, the Committee notes that the
Government states that it stopped pursuing the dismissal actions after the court hearing
the case found it had no jurisdiction, and that these cases have been closed and filed.
The Committee regrets to note, however, that the Government has not provided its
observations on the allegations of criminal proceedings against 42 officials and members
of the SIMEHR and the other legal actions mentioned by the complainant organization.
While emphasizing the importance of conducting legitimate trade union activities in a
peaceful manner, the Committee considers that the criminalization of industrial
relations is in no way conducive to harmonious and peaceful industrial relations [see
Compilation, para. 974]. On the basis of the foregoing, the Committee trusts that the
various criminal and legal actions arising from the strike action mentioned by the
complainant organization have been brought to a close. The Committee also invites the
Government to take the necessary steps to establish a framework for constructive
dialogue between the hospital and the various trade union organizations present in the
hospital.
- 333. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the complainant organization
claims that the instruction document violates the principles of freedom of association
in that: (i) it encourages acts of interference by supporting the representation of
workers who are not members of a trade union and who answer to MINSAL, to the detriment
of trade unions; and (ii) it violates the bipartite bargaining process by allowing a
majority to be obtained as a result of the participation of elected representatives
under employer control, thereby undermining the trade union’s participation in the
determination of terms and conditions of employment and in the settlement of disputes
through labour relations roundtables. The Committee also notes that the Government, for
its part, stated that the instruction document: (i) aims to establish labour relations
roundtables, which are forums and mechanisms that encourage dialogue, conciliation and
agreement; (ii) is not a formal legislative act, but merely an instrument that provides
administrative support; (iii) allows for the participation of all workers in labour
relations roundtables, including those who are not members of a trade union
organization, in accordance with the legislation in force, without restricting trade
union activity; and (iv) does not affect collective bargaining with trade union
organizations.
- 334. The Committee takes due note of these various points. The Committee
notes that the above-mentioned instruction document, which was adopted in August 2015,
establishes a number of labour relations roundtables at the national, regional and local
levels within the public health system of El Salvador, as well as in every public
hospital. The Committee notes in particular that: (i) section 5 of the instruction
document provides for equal representation in the labour relations roundtables between
trade union representatives and (elected) representatives of non-unionized workers; and
(ii) section 1 of the instruction document "also governs the procedure for the adoption
of agreements and recommendations and the formal conditions for ensuring their validity
and effective application", and that section 13 stipulates that "[t]he members of the
labour relations roundtables shall try to reach consensus on recommendations and
agreements concerning the determination of measures, actions or terms and conditions
relating to the performance of work of MINSAL staff". While noting that the parties have
not provided comprehensive data on the rate of trade union membership in the public
health sector, the Committee further notes that: (i) the instruction document does not
provide for or make reference to representativeness mechanisms that would ensure that
the number of seats given to the different workers’ representatives at labour relations
roundtables is proportionate to the support they have from staff; (ii) the instruction
document establishes that the delegates representing non-unionized employees shall be
elected by the assembly of non-unionized employees, and therefore it does not provide
for a mechanism allowing trade union organizations to try to obtain the votes of
non-unionized workers; and (iii) the Government does not mention other platforms through
which it negotiates exclusively with trade union organizations in the public health
sector or the existence of collective bargaining agreements signed with unions in this
sector.
- 335. The Committee considers that the various points highlighted in the
preceding paragraph should be taken into consideration when examining the complainant
organization's allegations that the instruction document enables the public authorities
to interfere in the representation of workers in the public health sector and undermines
bipartite collective bargaining with trade union organizations in the sector. In this
regard, the Committee recalls that measures should be taken to encourage and promote the
full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between
employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the
regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements [see
Compilation, para. 1231]. Noting also that El Salvador has ratified Convention No. 135,
the Committee recalls that Article 5 of this Convention provides that "[w]here there
exist in the same undertaking both trade union representatives and elected
representatives, appropriate measures shall be taken, wherever necessary, to ensure that
the existence of elected representatives is not used to undermine the position of the
trade unions concerned or their representatives and to encourage co-operation on all
relevant matters between the elected representatives and the trade unions concerned and
their representatives”. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government, in
consultation with the most representative trade union organizations in the sector, to
take the necessary measures to ensure that the instruction document is revised so that
dialogue with elected workers’ representatives does not undermine the position of the
trade union organizations and is not carried out to the detriment of the collective
bargaining processes with these organizations.
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 336. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the
Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The Committee requests
the Government to ensure from now on that any allegations of anti-union acts in the
hospital in question are promptly followed up by effective investigations by the
competent authorities so as to ensure full respect for freedom of association within
the hospital.
- (b) The Committee invites the Government to take the necessary
steps to establish a framework for constructive dialogue between the trade unions
present in the hospital and the hospital management and the Office of the Human
Rights Ombudsman on matters affecting their interests or those of their
members.
- (c) Concerning the wage deductions for non-compliance with the
attendance monitoring system, the Committee trusts that the courts have ensured that
such deductions are applied objectively, irrespective of the trade union membership
or union activity of the hospital workers.
- (d) The Committee trusts that the
amparo action brought by the SIMEHR before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme
Court of Justice has been resolved promptly and in conformity with the principles of
freedom of association.
- (e) The Committee trusts that the various criminal and
legal actions arising from the strike action mentioned by the complainant
organization have been brought to a close. The Committee also invites the Government
to take the necessary steps to establish a framework for constructive dialogue
between the hospital and the trade union organizations present in the
hospital.
- (f) The Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the
most representative trade union organizations in the sector, to take the necessary
measures to revise the instruction document concerning the establishment and
functioning of the labour relations roundtables of the Ministry of Health so that
dialogue with elected workers’ representatives does not undermine the position of
the trade union organizations and is not carried out to the detriment of the
collective bargaining processes with these organizations.
- (g) The Committee
considers that this case does not call for further examination and is
closed.