Definitive Report - REPORT_NO160, March 1977

1. 90. In a communication of 16 July 1976, the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) presented a complaint containing allegations of violations of trade union rights in Honduras.
2. 91. The text of the communication was transmitted to the Government, which sent its observations in a communication dated 13 October 1976.
3. 92. Honduras has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 93. In its communication the WFTU protested against what it regarded as the arbitrary dismissal of over 500 workers and a group of trade union leaders elected by the members of the National Union of Workers of the National Agrarian Institute.
2. 94. The Government attached to its communication a document prepared by the National Agrarian Institute concerning the allegation.
3. 95. In this document it is stated that, in order to meet the targets set by the Government for the implementation of agrarian reform, the National Agrarian Institute made a study for the purpose of reorganising its structure, and adopted Resolution No. 15 of 5 March 1976, the preamble to which is quoted in the document. In particular, the preamble indicates that:
   • - in accordance with section 95, clause 19, of the Labour Code, employers may make reductions in staff in accordance with the stipulations of the collective agreement, which in the present case establishes an order of priority subject to modification where the exigencies of the service require the employment of workers possessing certain levels of skill, experience and honesty;
   • - in accordance with section 489 of the Labour Code, notice of any change in the membership of the managing Committee of a trade union shall be given to the Ministry of Labour and Social welfare, and no change shall be effective unless this requirement has been observed. In the present instance this obligation was not met when the managing Committee of the National Union of Workers of the National Agrarian Institute was elected on 13 April 1975;
   • - in accordance with section 114 of the Agrarian Reform Act the Executive Director of the Institute is responsible for the appointment, transfer, promotion, suspension or dismissal of officials and employees of the Institute in accordance with the legal provisions; and
   • - in accordance with sections 116 and 118 of the Labour Code, where a contract is made for an unspecified period, either of the parties may terminate it by giving notice to the other party or by paying an equivalent amount.
4. 96. In the studies undertaken by the Institute prior to the decision to terminate the contracts of employment, the amount of savings that would be effected was based on a 15 per cent reduction in the number of staff.
5. 97. According to the document furnished by the Institute, the provisions of the collective agreement in force were respected. It was also stated that no union leader had had his contract terminated in accordance with the legal provisions. As the only legally registered management Committee had held office between July 1973 and July 1974 and none of its workers had been dismissed, the National Union of Workers of the National Agrarian Institute had had no legally registered management Committee since July 1974.
6. 98. Finally, it is stated in the report that all the workers affected by the reorganisation of the Institute have received the benefits legally due to them, and the situation has so far given rise to no complaints.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 99. The Committee notes that the case concerns measures of dismissal affecting workers of the National Agrarian Institute and in particular the leaders of the National Union of workers of this body, whose election, according to the Government, was not registered with the Ministry of Labour.
2. 100. The Committee has always taken the view that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials. However, the principle that a worker or a union leader may not suffer prejudice by reason of his union activities does not necessarily imply that the fact that a person holds a trade union office confers on him immunity against dismissal irrespective of the circumstances.
3. 101. In the present case it would appear that the dismissals were part of a reorganisation of the National Agrarian Institute. Furthermore, the relative provisions of the collective agreement appear to have been respected and no complaints have been submitted at the national level.
4. 102. Finally, the Committee considers that the complaint is couched in very general terms which do not enable it to reach a conclusion as to whether the dismissals constituted acts of antiunion discrimination.