CMNT_TITLE_CAS

The Government provided the following written information.

With technical support from the ILO, a Labour Code Reform Committee of the Ministry of Labour was currently preparing a draft text focusing on 13 sections of the Labour Code to bring it into line with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and four sections to bring the Labour Code into line with Convention No. 98 (including section 469 of the Code dealing with sanctions in cases of anti-union discrimination). The draft sections, which would take due account of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, will be submitted first to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and then to the Economic and Social Council (CES). Draft section 469 specifically provides that the fines should be increased, from the present level of 200 to 10,000 Honduran lempiras (HNL), to five to 20 times the minimum wage, that is from HNL32,650 to HNL130,600 at the current average minimum wage of HNL6,530 (US$310), and that for repeat offences the relevant fine should be increased by a further 50 per cent.

The Committee of Experts also requested that it be informed of the judicial sentences handed down by courts for acts of anti-union discrimination. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security expects to receive this information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office shortly and it will be sent to the Committee of Experts in due course. As to the absence of adequate and comprehensive protection against all acts of interference and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanction for such acts, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to take into account that the protection afforded by Article 2 of the Convention is broader in scope than that provided for under section 511 of the Labour Code. As indicated above, a committee within the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was working, with technical support from the ILO, on a proposal to amend section 511 and bring it into line with Article 2 of the Convention. In due course, this proposal would be submitted to the authorities at the Ministry of Labour Social Security and subsequently to the CES, taking full account of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. The draft reform of section 511 of the Code provides for fines for acts of interference on the part of employers of between five and 20 times the minimum wage, which would be imposed by the General Labour Inspectorate. The draft also provides that, when members who represent the employers, or who hold managerial posts, or are in positions of trust are elected to a trade union board, the elections will be declared null and void.

Turning to Article 6 of Convention No. 98 (the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State), the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, following up on the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, had drawn up a proposal to amend sections 534 and 536 on public servants’ right of association and limitations thereto. The draft amendments provide that public servant trade unions have the right to submit petitions in order to improve their general working conditions. In addition, the proposed reform provides that public servant trade unions would have all the powers of other workers’ unions and that their petitions would be handled on the same basis as all others, even when the workers in question cannot call or conduct a strike.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative referred to the political, economic and social conditions of his country that were having an impact on the subject under discussion. He mentioned the achievements of the current administration in the areas of planning, civic participation, productivity, development and minimum wages, and endorsed and updated the replies to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009, 2011 and 2012. With regard to the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination owing to the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code, he stated that section 469 as amended would read as follows:

Any person who by violations or threats in any way infringes the right to freedom of association shall incur a fine of five to 20 times the minimum wage, to be imposed by the General Labour Inspectorate, subject to full verification of the facts of the violation concerned.

For repeated offences, the standard fine shall be increased by 50 per cent.

Regarding cases in which criminal penalties had been imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination, he mentioned that the requested information was still awaited from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was undergoing a reform process further to the work of an audit board appointed by the National Congress. Nevertheless, he observed that precedents already existed in the Supreme Court of Justice (such as appeal cases Nos 401-2005, 326-2009 and 54-2005), and that the abovementioned information would be transmitted through official channels in due course. With respect to the absence of protection against all acts of interference and the lack of penalties that acted were sufficiently dissuasive, he indicated that work was in progress to amend section 511 of the Labour Code with a view to bringing it into line with Article 2 of Convention No. 98. Section 511 as amended would read as follows:

Trade union members who, by virtue of their posts in the enterprise, represent the employer or hold managerial posts or positions of trust or are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues shall be barred from election to the executive committee of a primary level or enterprise trade union or from appointment as union officers. The foregoing provision applies to managers, deputy managers, heads of personnel, private secretaries working for the executive committee, the management or the administration, department directors (chief engineer, chief medical officer, legal adviser, technical directors, etc.) and any other similar posts. Should any union member holding any of the abovementioned posts be elected, the election shall be deemed null and void. Any union member who has been duly elected and then takes up one of the abovementioned posts shall automatically relinquish his/her trade union office.

Should any of the situations described in the first paragraph of this section occur, it shall be deemed an act of interference by the employers against the workers or workers’ organizations and shall incur a penalty of five to 20 times the minimum wage, to be imposed by the General Labour Inspectorate.

With regard to the right to collective bargaining of officials not engaged in the administration of the State, work had been undertaken on a proposal to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code relating to the right of association of public employees and the limitations thereon.

Section 534 as amended would read as follows:

The right to organize in trade unions shall extend to workers throughout the public service, with the exception of members of the armed forces of Honduras and police forces of any kind. Public employee trade unions shall have the power to submit to representatives of the institutions lists of demands designed to improve their general conditions of employment, as established in section 56 of the present Code.

Section 536 as amended would read as follows:

Public employee trade unions shall have all the powers of other workers’ unions and their lists of demands shall be handled on the same basis as all others, even when they are not entitled to call or conduct a strike.

The Government of Honduras was ready to submit a report to the Committee of Experts containing updated information on further developments regarding the steps taken to bring the labour legislation into line with the ratified Conventions, in the framework of the CES, with support from the ILO. The Government considered that as a result of the efforts made and the technical support of the Office it had been possible to make progress on the preliminary drafts for the reform of the Labour Code, and those drafts would require a consensus involving workers and employers to achieve the proposed objectives.

The Worker members recalled that, since 1998, ten observations on the application of Convention No. 98, in particular on the need for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs, were addressed to the Government. No developments had taken place to date. Yet, in 2001, the Government had announced a revision of the Labour Code with respect to two points: sanctions against persons violating the right to organize freely and protection against dismissal of workers envisaging to establish a trade union. The Government had also committed to set up a system of dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. With regard to the issue of protection against acts of interference raised by the Committee of Experts, national legislation merely provided that unionized workers who, on account of their duties in the enterprise, held management posts or positions of trust or who were easily able to exercise undue pressure on their colleagues, could not be part of the executive committee of the union. The comments contained in the reports of the Committee of Experts in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 demonstrated the continued unwillingness of the Government with regard to the follow-up measures requested.

The Worker members recalled that this “double footnote case” illustrated the criteria used to identify such cases (seriousness and persistence of the problem, urgency of the situation, quality and scope of the Government’s response, and in particular the clear and repeated refusal on the part of a State to comply with its obligations). They referred to the written information supplied by the Government in which it announced a series of reforms underway with the objective of bringing the Labour Code in line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and to modify the amount of fines. However, the Worker members emphasized the lateness of this announcement and the confidence problem that arose in this regard, as government authorities could have submitted these legislative changes to the workers a long time ago so that they could have been discussed within the competent tripartite bodies. In its 2009 report, the Committee of Experts had raised new questions to which no answers were provided by the Government, for instance as regards: anti-union practices in export processing zones; delays in the administration of justice in cases of anti-union practices; non-compliance with court orders to reinstate trade unionists; the setting up of parallel organizations by employers; a draft act which could limit the right of collective bargaining to unions representing more than 50 per cent of the total number of employees in the enterprise; and numerous anti-union dismissals in various enterprises in the export processing zones, cement and bakery industries. The issue of the right to collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State had also been raised. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had indicated in 2009 that the procedure of “respectful statements” referred to by the Government, could not be considered as being in accordance with Convention No. 98. All issues had once again been raised in the 2012 observation.

The Worker members recalled that the fundamental right to collective bargaining was only meaningful and effective if workers’ organizations were independent, outside the employers’ control and free from interference from the authorities. They emphasized that serious problems persisted concerning the right to collective bargaining in practice, particularly in the education sector, where a virulent anti-union harassment was exercised against unions. Twenty-three union leaders of four organizations of teachers had been removed from office and dismissed; only two had been reinstated in their former jobs. In March 2012, the Ministry of Education had eliminated, without negotiation, the principle of deduction of union dues at source, thereby depriving unions of their financial resources. More than 1,000 teachers had been suspended for several days for taking part in union meetings. Without the ability to organize and participate in union meetings, and with the unions being beheaded, one could wonder how collective bargaining could be free and effective within the meaning of Convention No. 98. In the public sector, wages were frozen, collective bargaining was paralyzed and, when negotiations took place, collective agreements were not applied. Precarious work, called “hourly work”, without a contract and not covered by collective bargaining, was on the rise. Recalling more generally that, in terms of observance of working conditions, the fines were so low that it was cheaper to pay them than to remedy the situation, they stated that, although technical assistance had often been proposed, the present situation illustrated the persistent refusal of the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the right to collective bargaining was upheld.

The Employer members stated that the comments of the Committee of Experts were based on observations made some years ago by the ITUC relating to legislative matters, the creation of parallel unions and anti-union practices. With regard to legislative matters, they indicated that they did not agree with the Committee of Experts that there was insufficient protection against anti-union acts and that penalties were inadequate. In fact, the Convention did not provide for specific measures; rather, mechanisms appropriate to national circumstances should be put in place. The Convention did not require the imposition of fines. The fines established in the Labour Code ranged from US$12 to US$200, to ensure that they could be adapted to the severity of the offence and an employer’s ability to pay. It was impossible, without supplementary information, to determine whether the amount of the fines served as an effective deterrent. The Committee should have sought additional statistics on cases of anti-union discrimination, instead of requesting that the fines be increased.

With regard to section 511 of the Labour Code, the Employer members recalled that the Committee of Experts had considered that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions should also be imposed against acts of interference by employers in workers’ organizations. In that respect, they indicated that the situation and the type of protection necessary should have been investigated. In fact, section 511 provided for mechanisms to be established only where necessary. The observation of the Committee of Experts did not mention problems of interference by employers in the operation or administration of trade union organizations. Neither did it indicate that the protection provided for in section 511 was insufficient. With regard to the right of public servants not employed in the state administration to bargain collectively, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code should be amended to allow unions of public employees to submit lists of claims and sign collective agreements. At the same time, they took note of the Government’s statement that such matters would be examined by the CES in the framework of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

A Worker member of Honduras stated that the situation of systematic violations of workers’ labour and human rights in Honduras was the result of non-compliance with the national labour legislation and the ratified ILO Conventions. He denounced the fact that acquired rights were being restricted or removed altogether, the rights to organize and collective bargaining were not being respected, there was undue interference in internal trade union affairs, the unions’ executive committees received threats, trade union leave was cancelled and the entire trade union movement was constantly being harassed.

Another Worker member of Honduras observed that the Government neither safeguarded nor protected labour rights and human rights. Section 120 of the general provisions of the General Budget of the Republic approved by the National Congress for 2013 had frozen civil servants’ salaries and collective bargaining in decentralized, devolved and independent state enterprises. He also denounced the dismissals of union leaders, in violation of trade union immunity, the creation of parallel unions and the dismantling of unions that had been legally established. With respect to the Workers’ Union of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (SITRAUNAH), the speaker observed that since 2007 it had not been possible to negotiate a collective agreement. The situation had become so serious that the union leadership had been dismissed and complaints had been submitted to the criminal courts. The establishment of a parallel union had been encouraged with a view to its participation in collective bargaining. Regarding the Workers’ Union of the National Pedagogical University (SITRAUPN), he drew attention to the non-compliance with and failure to negotiate collective agreements and to the creation of a parallel workers’ association. The speaker also mentioned the non-compliance with and failure to negotiate collective agreements in the cases of the Workers’ Union of the Danlí municipality, the Diario Tiempo Workers’ Union, the Workers’ Union of the Institute for Public Servants’ Retirements and Pensions (SITRAIJUPEM), the Workers’ Union of the Executive Directorate of Revenues (DEI), the Workers’ Union of the National Vocational Training Institute (SITRAINFOP), the Workers’ Union of the National Agrarian Institute (INA), the Beverage and Allied Industries Workers’ Union (STIBYS), the workers of the Comayagua municipality and the Workers’ Union of the Honduran Institute of Children and the Family (SITRAIHNFA). In view of the above, he requested that a direct contacts mission be sent to investigate in situ the allegations made in plenary.

An observer representing Education International (EI), denounced the refusal of trade union leave to the members of central executive committees of four educational organizations, the dismissal of 20 union leaders who had retained their posts thanks to trade union immunity, and the dismissal of over 1,000 education workers on the ground that they had attended assemblies in 2012 and 2013; 50 workers were in the process of being dismissed. She also mentioned interference in trade union affairs, the suspension since March 2011 of deductions of union dues, the criminalization of protests and strikes, and the existence of a smear campaign by the Government. Moreover, the police attacks during peaceful demonstrations that had led to the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez in March 2011, had remained unpunished.

The Employer member of Honduras stated that, while allegations had been made of acts of anti-union discrimination (without however making reference to any specific cases), he considered that there was adequate protection of the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining in the country. The speaker refuted the view that the amount of the fines prescribed for acts of anti-union discrimination was too low. Moreover, he considered that the amount of the fine did not impact on the ability of the administrative and judicial authorities to impose sanctions on both private and public parties that violated those rights. The Criminal Code had indeed been amended without consultation; however, the amendment in no way hindered protection of freedom of association and collective bargaining from an administrative or judicial point of view. He expressed support for the proposed revision of section 469 of the Labour Code and recalled that from 1992 to 1995, with assistance from ILO experts, a tripartite consultation process had taken place with a view to revising the Labour Code. The draft revision, which included the elements that had been referred to during the current discussion, should have been taken up by the CES. Regrettably, it had not been submitted to the legislative body by the Government of the time. Turning to the lack of adequate protection against acts of interference, he agreed that section 511 of the Labour Code needed to be revised, as did all other provisions that would be deemed unnecessary. He added that he would not pronounce himself on any specific case since none were mentioned in the allegations. As for the prohibition of concluding collective agreements in the public sector, it was clear that, in that regard, the allegations were false, since there were collective agreements in central Government, in the municipalities, in the autonomous institutions and in the decentralized institutions. He regretted that the Government had not submitted the information on time and correctly. He also drew attention to the fact that all issues highlighted by the Committee of Experts must be examined and approved by the CES before being sent to the National Congress. The Labour Code needed to be revised, in line with the provisions of Convention No. 144, with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Conventions that had been ratified.

The Government member of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Government members of the Committee which were members of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), welcomed the initiatives of the Government to reform the provisions of the Labour Code which were highlighted in the report of the Committee of Experts, and thanked the Government representative for the additional information provided which illustrated its commitment to comply with Convention No. 98, taking into account the recommendations formulated by the Committee of Experts. Cooperation was of the utmost importance, and they trusted that the ILO would continue to provide the necessary technical assistance to Honduras, and encouraged all social partners to spare no efforts to maintain a constructive dialogue so that the labour law reform would culminate in a satisfactory solution for the three parties.

The Worker member of Mexico indicated that the seriousness, persistence and urgency of this case justified sending a direct contacts mission to the country so as to promote the rule of law based on a legal system that guaranteed the workers’ right to organize and collective bargaining. The Government did not recognize the legal personality of genuine unions but granted it to purported unions created by employers. When, exceptionally, workers succeeded in concluding a collective agreement, it was not complied with. Also, workers were not allowed to go on strike in the event of breach of the collective agreement. This was a situation similar to that of Mexico, where the collective agreements registered with the local conciliation and arbitration boards only contained minimum legislative requirements and never adjusted wages. Indeed, those were collective agreements signed by trade unions that enjoyed support from employers, without knowledge of the workers. The similarity between this system and the situation in Honduras raised the suspicion that the collective bargaining model of Honduras had been exported from Mexico.

The Worker member of the United States stated that, in March 2012, 25 Honduran unions and labour federations and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) had filed a petition to request investigation of abuses of labour rights under the labour chapter of the Dominican Republic – Central America–United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR). The complaint had been accepted by the US Department of Labor in May 2012, in recognition that violations cited in the petition must be investigated, since the trade agreement required Honduras and the United States not only to comply with national laws but also with international labour standards of the ILO, in particular to respect “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining”. He indicated that the Committee of Experts was vital to the supervision of international labour standards, which were increasingly being used in bi-national and multilateral agreements that were key to international trade and industrial relations in multinational companies. In Honduras, the State had continuously failed to protect workers’ rights, employers had not respected repeated efforts by workers to claim those rights, and no remedy had been provided when workers had demonstrated the violation of rights. According to the Committee of Experts’ observation, the ITUC had reported in 2009, 2011 and 2012 ongoing anti-union practices in the export processing zones; anti-union dismissals; slow proceedings dealing with complaints of anti-union practices; and non-compliance with court orders to reinstate dismissed trade unionists. As the cases in the CAFTA petition demonstrated, the Government had failed to respond to those violations, such infringements continued impunity and employers had committed more violations as recently as 26 April 2013.

The speaker presented to the Committee one of the many cases described in the petition. An automobile parts manufacturer (joint venture between United States’ and Korean companies), which employed approximately 4,000 workers for export production purposes, had refused to receive notice of the union’s legal registration, had rejected the bargaining proposal duly presented in 2011 and had illegally dismissed the elected union leaders in January and February 2012. The Government had consistently failed to enforce laws to reinstate those union leaders. In March 2012, the union had held elections to replace the dismissed leaders but two days later three of the newly elected union leaders had been dismissed. In November 2012, the union had again presented its bargaining proposal according to the law, which the company had refused. On 4 March 2013, the union and management had agreed on terms of bargaining. On 6 March, the union had again presented its bargaining proposal to the company and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The company had repeatedly asked to reschedule the first negotiating session, using stalling tactics. The union had filed a complaint with the Ministry over the company’s refusal to bargain. After having been refused entry three times and instructed to return at a later stage, a ministry official had declared that all efforts had been exhausted and had requested the Ministry to move to the mediation phase. Throughout April, the management had held mandatory meetings with workers, threatening to close the factory because of the union, and had dismissed at least 108 union members, including all remaining elected union leaders. Yet, in November 2012, the company had been hiring hundreds of workers, reaching a total of 4,200 workers before the mass firings had begun. As documented in numerous human rights reports, the Government regularly used its powers, including the police and military, to enforce law and order during protests of civil society, teachers and unions. However, in the case of enforcing workers’ rights, the State did not use those or any of its powers. He expressed concerns about broader political freedoms and human rights in civil society in Honduras. He trusted that the Committee could reach meaningful conclusions regarding the facts in the present case, and considered that a direct contacts mission of the ILO would be necessary to address the consistent failure of the Government to respect the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Worker member of Panama considered that the Committee had the responsibility to take measures and follow up on the request of the Honduran workers to send a direct contacts mission to the country, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations (deaths and imprisonments). It was necessary to send a message of peace to the region. He also deemed regrettable that, as in Panama, union leaders were being called to trial and made subject to precautionary measures.

The Worker member of Nicaragua, referring also to the Common Trade Union Platform for Central America (PSCC), the Federation of Teachers’ Organizations of Central America (FOMCA) and Education International for Latin America, endorsed and supported the allegations and demands made. The authorities had consistently violated labour legislation with regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Despite having resulted from collective bargaining and being enshrined in the Constitution, the Teachers Statute had been violated. Education workers who had taken part in protests had had their wages reduced. He also referred to the audit undertaken in the Institute for the Social Security of Teachers.

The Worker member of Brazil recalled that the Committee of Experts had been citing the Government’s non-compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 for years. If democracy was to work properly, it was essential that the rights embodied in those Conventions be respected. The legal system in force in the country did not allow workers to establish and join organizations freely or to engage in collective bargaining, and it encouraged political and financial interference in trade unions by the employers. There was no effective legal machinery to prevent such anti-union behaviour because the fines imposed were not dissuasive and because the judicial procedures were slow. Moreover, the right to strike was hampered by the fact that the requisite quorums for taking strike action were too high. Those requirements were also contrary to the principles laid down by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Government representative said that much effort had been invested in bringing the Labour Code into line with the Conventions, which illustrated the Government’s goodwill. He also stated that tripartism was one of the Government’s objectives. To that end, measures were being taken with a view to amending the regulatory framework of the CES. Likewise, within this body, discussions were being planned on the new labour inspection law and on amending the sections of the Labour Code in order to bring it into line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Nonetheless, Honduras was embarking on an election period which would culminate in November 2013; the necessary reforms would therefore have to wait until the new government had been elected.

The Worker members recalled the comments that the Committee of Experts had been formulating since 1998 and noted with regret the Government’s lack of will to implement its recommendations, even though they were very clear. According to the report, the Convention was not currently being applied in Honduras. However, the Government had recently requested the technical assistance that the ILO had been offering for years, which suggested that the situation had evolved and was a sign of goodwill on the part of the Government. As the Worker members saw it, one constructive move would be to propose that a direct contacts mission be sent to the country to facilitate the reforms that the Government had announced and to ensure that their implementation benefited from tripartite dialogue. The mission could present an annual follow-up report to the Committee of Experts which would examine the case as long as necessary in a special chapter of its report.

The Employer members, noting that the discussion was about compliance with one of the fundamental Conventions, it was a double footnoted case, and it had already been examined on numerous occasions, it was a case of serious problems of compliance with the Convention. They therefore supported the Worker members proposal for a direct contacts mission so that, with ILO assistance and the participation of the social partners, the Government could take steps to have the legislation amended so as to bring it into line with the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government and the discussion that ensued.

The Committee noted that the outstanding issues concerned the need for protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in both law and practice, including in the export processing zones, and the right to collective bargaining for public employees.

The Committee noted the Government’s statements according to which the authorities were currently working on a partial reform of the Labour Code with the technical assistance of the ILO, taking into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, in order to strengthen the protection in law against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. Furthermore, there was a proposal by the Secretary of Labour to amend the Labour Code so as to ensure that the representatives of employees of public institutions would be able to present lists of claims, just like other unions; these texts would then be submitted to the CES, before being submitted to Parliament.

The Committee stressed the importance of the reform process being carried out in consultation with all the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned. Observing that these matters have been pending for many years, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the abovementioned amendments would be submitted to the legislature in the near future so that it would be able to note tangible progress towards full compliance of the legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to ensure the effective modification of the law and the practice for the full application of this fundamental Convention and to develop tripartite dialogue to resolve the matters concerned. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts for examination at its next meeting in 2013.

The Government representative indicated that his Government was creating the right environment for social dialogue so as to promote tripartism and freedom of association. The CES was the appropriate forum for the issue to be dealt with as a priority. The next step would be to transmit it to the National Congress. His Government did not believe that a direct contacts mission was necessary, but would nevertheless receive it and facilitate its work. He was certain that, when the next report was submitted, this Committee would be able to applaud the progress made.

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that its comments have referred for many years to:

–      the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties provided for in section 469 of the Labour Code for persons who interfere with the right to freedom of association, ranging from 200 to 10,000 lempiras (HNL) (200 lempiras being roughly equivalent to US$12), were deemed inadequate. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section 321 of Decree No. 191-96 of 31 October 1996 establishes penalties for cases of discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to indicate specific cases in which this provision has been used to impose penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination; and

–      the lack of adequate and full protection against any acts of interference, and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions for such acts. The Committee notes the comments from the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) of 22 May 2008, according to which the Secretariat of State decided, by means of a decision of 2 July 2002, to prohibit any opposition by employers to the recognition and registration of the legal personality of workers’ organizations, or from workers with regard to employers’ organizations, in order to guarantee adequate protection against acts of interference.

The Committee notes that the Government, in reply to the comments from the ITUC of 28 August 2005 concerning the dismissal of numerous trade union officials and members following the founding of a trade union, indicates that the mass dismissal of the members of a union executive committee is a rare and isolated measure and has not been the subject of complaints to the competent institutions. The Government adds that there have been no legislative amendments in connection with the application of the Convention which relate to anti-union discrimination and interference. The Government points out that it has been impossible to hold discussions on the reform of the Labour Code because of the strong opposition of the three major workers’ federations operating in the country. The Government adds that the Directorate of Labour of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security has held various training workshops in the major cities of the country for leaders of workers’ organizations, aimed at informing and educating them with regard to the legal framework for collective bargaining. This body also undertakes activities to promote and disseminate the rights contained in the Convention through the publication of a “Guide to the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining”, and also flyers and leaflets on the exercise of those rights. The Committee recalls that the Government has the responsibility to ensure the application of freely ratified international labour Conventions relating to freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to include provisions in the national legislation for adequate and full protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination or interference, establishing sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties for such acts.

The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the observation from the ITUC dated 26 August 2009 concerning alleged anti-union practices in export processing zones, delays in the administration of justice in cases of anti-union practices (the Government indicates the possibility of a summary judgement in cases of unfair dismissals but the Committee considers that more information is needed), failure to comply with court orders for the reinstatement of trade unionists (according to the Government, reinstatement is only requested by the worker in isolated cases in practice) and the creation of parallel trade unions by employers (the Government merely states that these are not specific allegations). The Committee requests the Government to hold tripartite discussions on this matter and keep it informed in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee also notes the new comments from the ITUC dated 26 August 2009 which refer to the application of the Convention and, in particular, the drawing up of a draft Act which could limit collective bargaining only to unions which represent more than 50 per cent of the total number of employees in the enterprise, the setting up of parallel organizations by employers with which they undertake collective bargaining, and numerous anti-union dismissals in various enterprises in the export processing (maquila), cement and bakery industries. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

Article 6. Right of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments from the ITUC dated 28 August 2007 (many of them similar to those sent in previous years), alleging that public employees are forbidden to sign collective labour agreements. The Government points out that public officials have legally imposed limits on their duties (section 534 of the Labour Code), including the right to submit “respectful statements” containing requests of interest to all members in general. Section 536 states that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or sign collective agreements, but other official workers’ unions have the same powers as any others to deal with claims on equal terms. The Government refers to a number of state enterprises and municipalities with high population density which have signed collective agreements and points out that official workers do have the right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that a system in which public employees may only submit to the authorities “respectful statements” which will not be the subject of any negotiation, particularly with regard to conditions of employment, is not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that, even though Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope of application, other categories of workers must be able to enjoy the guarantees provided for by the Convention, and therefore be able to undertake collective bargaining with respect to their conditions of employment, including pay. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to guarantee the full application of the Convention.

The Committee reminds the Government that the problems referred to above have persisted for many years and that it can seek technical assistance from the Office.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the comments made by the COHEP dated 6 October 2009 (including information on protection against anti-union dismissals in the public sector and the corresponding legislation).

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments of 10 August 2006 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation), which referred mainly to issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice which have already been examined, as well as the failure to comply with a collective agreement in the mining sector. With regard to the latter issue, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security has not received any complaint in this respect. Nevertheless, the Secretariat is engaged in a procedure relating to other complaints against the mining company concerned.

The Committee recalls that it has been referring for many years in its comments to:

–           the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code for persons who prejudice the right to freedom of association range between 200 and 10,000 lempiras (200 lempiras being equivalent to around US$12), which were deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation; and

–           the lack of adequate and full protection against any acts of interference, and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions for such acts. Article 2 of the Convention provides for protection for workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other (or their agents), with particular reference to acts that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. This protection is considerably broader than that envisaged in section 511 of the Labour Code, which is confined to providing that members of a union whose tasks entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust, or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues, may not hold trade union office.

In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its observation of 2005 it noted the preparation of a draft reform of the Labour Code incorporating a number of the amendments requested by the Committee, which had been preceded by a tripartite study. The Committee notes that in its report the Government reiterates its commitment to considerably strengthening tripartite dialogue as a tool for social and equitable development with a view to improving the labour legislation, with particular reference to section 469 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that it is more effective and thereby guarantees respect for the freedom to organize and to engage in collective bargaining. The Government retains the firm hope that the Economic and Social Council, which serves as a concerted social dialogue body, will serve as the forum in which all matters relating to the necessary and urgent reforms of the labour legislation will be analysed and discussed with a view to harmonizing it with ratified ILO Conventions.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that in the near future the Government will take the necessary measures to include in the national legislation adequate and full protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination or interference and will establish sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee reminds the Government that the Office’s technical assistance is at its disposal.

Finally, the Committee notes the communication dated 28 August 2007 from the ITUC which refers to pending issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention. Furthermore, according to the ITUC, public employees are prohibited from concluding collective labour agreements, the Labour Code restricts the matters which may be covered by bargaining and empowers the Ministry of Labour to approve the content of a collective agreement. The ITUC also refers to the dismissal of numerous trade union leaders and members following the establishment of a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these matters.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 10 August 2006, referring largely to matters relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice which have already been examined. The ICFTU also alleges failure to comply with a collective agreement in the mining sector.

The Committee requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the Committee’s next session in November-December 2007 on the ICFTU’s comments and on the other issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see the 2005 observation, 76th Session).

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and notes with interest that a draft reform of the Labour Code has been prepared and incorporates a number of the amendments the Committee has been requesting for many years. It also notes that a tripartite study was conducted before the reform was drafted.

The Committee has been commenting for several years on:

1. Inadequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had requested the Government to make provision in the legislation, which already prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination, for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts, since the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code for impairment of the right to freedom of association (from 200 to 10,000 lempiras, 200 lempiras being equivalent to around US$12) had been deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation. The Committee once again expresses the hope that the draft legislation will be adopted in the near future and will provide for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on this matter in its next report.

2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes that the Government again indicates in its report that pursuant to section 511 of the Labour Code, members of the union whose tasks entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust, or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues, may not hold trade union office. The Committee points out in this connection that Article 2 of the Convention provides for broader protection for employers’ and workers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other (or their agents) and treats as acts of interference, among others, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee again expresses the hope that the draft legislation will be adopted in the near future and will include provisions designed to prohibit and afford full and adequate protection against all acts of inference, together with sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to this end.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Inadequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation, which already prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination, sets forth sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee noted in its previous observation that, according to the Government, as the penalties envisaged in section 469 of the Labour Code against persons impairing the right to freedom of association (from 200 to 2,000 lempiras, with 200 lempiras being equivalent to around $12) had been deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation, a process of tripartite dialogue would be initiated to discuss reforms of the labour legislation to adapt it to the needs of the social partners. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that, although it has forwarded the observations of the Committee of Experts to employers’ and workers’ organizations for their opinions, it has not received any reply from them. The Government adds that examination of labour law reforms is envisaged in the strategic agenda of the tripartite dialogue and consultation body and, in particular, the Economic and Social Council. The Committee once again hopes that the outcome of the tripartite discussions on labour law reform will be the preparation of a Bill in the near future providing for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report. The Committee also reminds the Government that it can seek the Office’s technical assistance in drafting the above Bill.

2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, under the terms of section 511 of the Labour Code, members of a union whose tasks entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust, or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues, may not hold trade union office. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention provides for broader protection for workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other (or their agents) and considers as acts of interference, in particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. In this respect, the Committee once again hopes that, in the context of the process of dialogue for the labour law reform, provisions will be included, designed to prohibit and afford full and adequate protection against any acts of interference, as well as sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted to this end.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that it has been referring for years to the need for the legislation to provide for adequate protection, particularly sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, against acts of anti-union discrimination for trade union membership or activities and against acts of interference by employers or their organization in trade union affairs.

With regard to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that, according to the Government: (1) section 469 of the Labour Code, amended by Decree No. 978 of 1980, punishes the impairment of freedom of association by a fine of from 200 to 10,000 lempiras (200 lempiras = approximately US$12) but, these provisions having been deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation, tripartite consultation has been initiated in order to discuss the reform of the labour legislation to align it with the needs of the social partners; this should lead to a bill being submitted to the National Congress of the Republic; (2) section 517 of the Labour Code provides for protection against dismissal, transfer or the downgrading of working conditions without just cause established by the respective authority for workers who notify to the employer and the General Directorate of Labour their intention to organize a trade union, such protection lasting only until the trade union obtains legal personality (prior authorization from the judicial authority is required in order to dismiss workers covered by this special immunity). The Committee hopes that the outcome of the tripartite discussions on labour law reform will be a bill providing for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee hopes that such a bill will be prepared in the near future and asks the Government to inform it in this respect in its next report. The Committee also reminds the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the Office in drafting the bill in question.

With regard to protection against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that section 511 of the Labour Code excludes from eligibility for trade union office those members of the union whose duties entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues. The Committee recalls in this connection that acts to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means are included among the acts of interference referred to in Article 2 of the Convention. Noting that the Government is planning a reform of the labour legislation with regard to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee hopes that the reform will include provisions designed to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations enjoy proper protection against acts of interference by each other, and that there are sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee asks the Government to inform it of any measures adopted to this end in its next report.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's report. It also notes the comments submitted by the Single Confederation of Honduran Workers (CUTH) with regard to application of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that for years it has referred to the need for legislation to provide sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs. The Committee also recalls that in its previous comments it took note of a preliminary draft reforming the Labour Code of December 1995 which strengthens measures and sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government makes no reference to this preliminary draft in its report; rather, it refers only to the Labour Code amended by Decree No. 978 of 1980 which provides sanctions against persons who hinder the full right to freedom of association. The Committee notes that the CUTH states that legislation does not provide sanctions to punish employers who violate the rights set out in the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Labour Code which sanctions acts of discrimination and interference and to texts of administrative and judicial decisions on this matter.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's report.

The Committee recalls its previous comments which referred to the need for the legislation to provide sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs. In this respect, the Committee had noted that a draft text to amend the Labour Code of December 1996 strengthened the measures and sanctions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and/or interference, with fines ranging from 30 to 100 times the highest statutory minimum monthly wage (section 390 of the draft text).

The Committee notes that the Government refers to the draft text of the above Labour Code and indicates that the reform measures have not been completed by the social partners.

In these conditions, the Committee hopes that in the very near future the necessary legislative amendments will be adopted. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any measures adopted in this respect.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code will contain sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters.

In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that the preliminary draft reform of the Labour Code of December 1996 has strengthened measures and sanctions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and/or of interference, with fines of 30 to 100 times the highest legal monthly minimum salary (section 390 of the preliminary draft). The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the Labour Code once it has been approved.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee also asked the Government to send it detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and on any rules applying in the event of collective disputes.

In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the provisions of the Labour Code mentioned by the Government under which employees in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises have the right to collective bargaining on the same terms as other workers (sections 53, 72 and 536), as well as of the legislation applicable in the event of collective disputes. It requests the Government to send it specific information on any collective labour agreement which has been concluded recently by workers and their organizations in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code will contain sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters.

In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that the preliminary draft reform of the Labour Code of December 1996 has strengthened measures and sanctions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and/or of interference, with fines of 30 to 100 times the highest legal monthly minimum salary (section 390 of the preliminary draft). The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the Labour Code once it has been approved.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee also asked the Government to send it detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and on any rules applying in the event of collective disputes.

In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the provisions of the Labour Code mentioned by the Government under which employees in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises have the right to collective bargaining on the same terms as other workers (sections 53, 72 and 536), as well as of the legislation applicable in the event of collective disputes. It requests the Government to send it specific information on any collective labour agreement which has been concluded recently by workers and their organizations in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and observes that it has not answered the questions raised in its previous direct request.

The Committee again asks the Government to send detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and any applicable rules in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code is to contain provisions on the existence of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during employment against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters (Articles 1 and 2).

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the new authorities have submitted the draft reform of the Labour Code to the competent authority, but observes that it has not answered the questions raised in its previous direct request.

The Committee again asks the Government to send detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and any rules applying in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code is to contain provisions on the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during employment, protection for workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters, and the existence of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions for such acts (Articles 1 and 2).

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee regrets that the Government has confined itself to transmitting a copy of its report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988 and has not examined the comments that the Committee made in its March 1989 Session. The Commmittee is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request, and in particular that the Labour Code (Title II, Chapter IV) is the law applicable to all sectors, including the public sector, with regard to the right to bargain collectively. The Government supplies a list of 28 public sector institutions (with the exception of ministries and comparable bodies) where collective agreements have been concluded. With regard to public servants employed in ministries, the Government points out that, in accordance with section 534 of the Labour Code, they have the right to unionize, with certain restrictions.

The Committee requests the Government to supply details on the legislation which grants the right to bargain collectively to workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State and on the standards that are applicable in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

Articles 1 and 2. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which provisions guarantee protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, and protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference in union matters by employers and employers' organizations and to indicate whether there exist sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee regrets that the Government has confined itself to transmitting a copy of its report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988 and has not examined the comments that the Committee made in its March 1989 Session. The Commmittee is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request, and in particular that the Labour Code (Title II, Chapter IV) is the law applicable to all sectors, including the public sector, with regard to the right to bargain collectively. The Government supplies a list of 28 public sector institutions (with the exception of ministries and comparable bodies) where collective agreements have been concluded. With regard to public servants employed in ministries, the Government points out that, in accordance with section 534 of the Labour Code, they have the right to unionise, with certain restrictions.

The Committee requests the Government to supply details on the legislation which grants the right to bargain collectively to workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State and on the standards that are applicable in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

Articles 1 and 2. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which provisions guarantee protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, and protection of workers' organisations against acts of interference in union matters by employers and employers' organisations and to indicate whether there exist sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request, and in particular that the Labour Code (Title II, Chapter IV) is the law applicable to all sectors, including the public sector, with regard to the right to bargain collectively. The Government supplies a list of 28 public sector institutions (with the exception of ministries and comparable bodies) where collective agreements have been concluded. With regard to public servants employed in ministries, the Government points out that, in accordance with section 534 of the Labour Code, they have the right to unionise, with certain restrictions.

The Committee requests the Government to supply details on the legislation which grants the right to bargain collectively to workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State, and on the standards that are applicable in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

Articles 1 and 2. The Committee asks the Government to indicate which provisions guarantee protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, and protection of workers' organisations against acts of interference in union matters by employers and employers' organisations and to indicate the civil remedies and penal sanctions applicable.