Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO93, 1967

1. 121. This case has already been examined by the Committee at its sessions in November 1964 and February 1966. On those occasions interim reports were submitted, and these appear in paragraphs 172 to 184 of the 79th Report and in paragraphs 243 to 263 of the 87th Report of the Committee respectively.
2. 122. Honduras has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

123. In paragraph 263 of its 87th Report the Committee made the following recommendations to the Governing Body, which were approved by the Governing Body at its 164th Session (February-March 1966):

1. ......................................................................................................................................................
2. (a) to draw the attention of the Government to the importance which the Governing Body attaches to the principles enunciated in Article 3 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), ratified by Honduras, according to which workers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their Constitutions and rules and to organise their activities and the public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof; in Article 4, according to which workers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority; in Article 7, according to which the acquisition of legal personality shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions contained in the foregoing Articles; and in Article 8, according to which the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in the Convention;
3. (b) to draw attention to the view expressed by the I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations that the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote of the total membership of the union or branch concerned before a lawful strike can be declared is not compatible with Article 3 of the said Convention, and that section 500 (2) (c) of the Labour Code, according to which the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare may suspend the legal personality of a trade union guilty of a contravention of the Code, is not compatible with Article 4 of the Convention;
4. (c) to request the Government to be good enough to inform the Governing Body as to the steps it intends to take to bring its legislation in these respects into harmony with the provisions of the Convention;
5. (d) to express the hope that the Government will now further review the case of the application for legal personality by the complaining organisation in the light of the foregoing considerations.
6. 124. The foregoing recommendations were brought to the attention of the Government, which replied in two communications of 6 and 7 May 1966. At its 43rd Session (May 1966) the Committee postponed examination of the case since it had received the information requested from the Government too late to enable it to be examined.
7. 125. In its communication of 6 May 1966 the Government states that it has followed a policy of strict observance of the provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Convention No. 87, and that the discrepancies existing between the Labour Code and the Convention have been removed in full accordance with the principles of social justice. Regarding Article 4 of the Convention it states that the administrative authority has not in any instance dissolved a trade union organisation; on the contrary, it has ensured that petitions for the dissolution and liquidation of trade unions are brought before the labour courts. Furthermore, it has established and maintained the principle that an undertaking has no right to be heard as petitioner in cases of dissolution and liquidation of trade union organisations. As proof of this the Government encloses documents relating to various proceedings involving the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. It appears from one of these documents that in proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Department of Olancho, an undertaking applied for the dissolution of the trade union on the grounds of its alleged failure to satisfy legal requirements, and the Public Prosecutor, at the request of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, petitioned for the said proceedings to be declared null and void. The Public Prosecutor argued that the Labour Code guaranteed protection by the State of workers' occupational organisations, that Honduras had ratified International Labour Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and that the undertaking was not part of the trade union nor a member of its general meeting; furthermore, it had no power whatever to interfere in any way with the life or the existence of the trade union organisation.
8. 126. The other documents sent by the Government contain the texts of decisions by the Executive or the Directorate of Labour, declaring irreceivable petitions presented on a number of occasions by various undertakings with the object of having trade unions dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
9. 127. Nevertheless, the Government states that it will study all possible ways of amending the Labour Code so as to bring its provisions into line with those of Convention No. 87, and that it will in due course inform the I.L.O concerning this matter.
10. 128. In its communication of 7 May 1966 the Government states that it has passed a resolution recognising the legal personality of the Authentic Trade Union Federation of Honduras, and that on 25 February 1966 the names of the members of its executive committee were entered in the register of executive committees of workers' organisations.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 129. The Committee notes the additional information sent spontaneously by the Government with its communication of 6 May 1966, concerning the points to which the recommendations of the Committee set out in paragraph 263 (a), (b) and (c) of its 87th Report referred. Concerning the recommendation in paragraph 263 (d) the Committee observes that the authorities have recognised the legal personality of the complainant organisation, a matter which formed the subject of the complaint.