Interim Report - REPORT_NO278, June 1991

1. 490. The United Federation of Workers of Honduras (FUTH) presented a complaint of infringement of freedom of association and of trade union rights in a communication dated 23 October 1990. The Government furnished its observations on the case in a letter dated 21 December 1990, which reached the ILO on 18 February 1991.
2. 491. Honduras has ratified both 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 492. In a letter dated 23 October 1990, the United Federation of Workers of Honduras (FUTH) alleges that members of the executive committee and 20 members of the Union of Workers of the Housing Office (SITRAINVA) were dismissed for trade union activities in breach of national legislation and of international standards.
2. 493. The complainant Federation explains that on 11 October 1990 the general administrator of the Housing Office (INVA) used the restructuring that had been taking place in this state enterprise as an excuse to carry out these dismissals and that, despite section 516 of the Labour Code which affords special protection to members of the executive committee of a trade union, these persons were dismissed without just cause. The said section 516 provides that:
   • It shall not be lawful to dismiss from his employment any worker who is a member of the executive committee of a union, at any time from the date of his election until six months after he has ceased to hold office, unless evidence is first submitted to the competent labour or civil judge showing that there is lawful cause for terminating his contract of employment. The judge shall decide the matter in accordance with summary procedure. Where a union is divided into branches and sub-branches, this rule shall apply only to the central executive committee.
   • Any employer contravening the preceding paragraph shall be required to pay the union concerned the equivalent of the worker's wages for six months by way of damages, without prejudice to the rights of the worker himself.
3. 494. Furthermore, the Federation goes on to say, the administrator of the INVA is said to have alleged that there had been no infringement of trade union rights since the union's executive committee was not registered as such with the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare.
4. 495. The Federation states in this respect that on 7 August 1990 the new chairman of the SITRAINVA sent a written communication to the Director-General for Labour and Social Welfare, within the specified time-limit, informing him of the change in the executive committee and requesting, on the basis of supporting documentation, registration of the new executive committee. However, states the Federation, because of circumstances which give reason to question the intentions of the authorities, examination of the application was delayed with the result that, when the administrator of the INVA decided on the dismissals in question, the executive committee had still not been registered.
5. 496. The Federation considers moreover that failure to register the executive committee cannot justify - as the administrator of the INVA sought to do - the non-application of section 516 of the Labour Code since the only condition stipulated by this condition is that the election of the members of the executive committee must have been lawfully organised, as was the case.
6. 497. The Federation considers the dismissal of the 20 trade unionists to be unlawful since the reason invoked, namely restructuring of the enterprise, does not constitute a valid reason for termination of a contract of employment by the employer under section 112 of the Labour Code.
7. 498. According to the Federation, the above-stated facts demonstrate collusion between the administrator of the INVA and the Ministry of Labour authorities and are an infringement not only of national laws and regulations but of international standards, and in particular of Convention No. 98.
8. 499. The Federation therefore calls for the ending of these infringements of national and international law which are causing serious prejudice to the workers concerned, for the restoring of the law that is now being disregarded and for reinstatement of the dismissed workers.

B. The Government's reply

1. 500. The Government begins its communication by stating that the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare has definitely not acted in collusion with any official in order to undermine the workers' interests since it is he who safeguards the strict application of labour standards based on social justice and equity.
2. 501. As regards the alleged dismissal of members of the executive committee and of 20 trade unionists of the SITRAINVA for trade union activities, the Government refers to the records of the General Directorate of Labour in which all the facts connected with this affair since 20 July 1989 are filed. It states in particular that in July 1989 an objection was lodged against the executive committee of the SITRAINVA in respect of the election of its members which, it was maintained, should be rendered null and void. The signatories of the application for registration then demanded that this objection be disregarded, but this was contrary to legal procedure; following examination of the facts, which showed the objection to be founded, the executive committee of the SITRAINVA, in accordance with the law, was not registered. All that was recorded in respect of the executive committee of the SITRAINVA was therefore its registration for the period from August 1988 to August 1989. Nothing else has been recorded since 12 August 1989, when the executive committee of the SITRAINVA ceased to exist legally.
3. 502. Under the circumstances, the Government maintains, section 516 of the Labour Code which affords special protection to members of the executive committee of a trade union in the event of dismissals does not apply since the conditions covered by the provision had not been fulfilled and, furthermore, the six months' period referred to had expired in February 1990.
4. 503. As regards the allegation of delay in the examination of this case, the Government refers to section 117 of the Act in respect of administrative procedure which provides for an appeal to the superiors of any official, in the event of unjustified delay and other failings in administrative procedure.
5. 504. Finally, as regards the grounds for the dismissals, the Government states that section 112 of the Labour Code admittedly does not refer to the restructuring of an enterprise as one of the valid reasons for terminating a contract of employment; on the other hand, it does provide that any worker or group of workers who consider that their interests have been prejudiced may appeal to the competent authorities for a hearing and to seek justice.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 505. The complaint in this case concerns the dismissal, on 11 October 1990, of the members of the executive committee and 20 members of the Trade Union of Workers of the Housing Office (SITRAINVA) at the Housing Office (INVA).
2. 506. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, in July 1989 an application for the registration of a former executive committee of the SITRAINVA, elected on 27 July, was rejected following an objection that had been lawfully lodged against this election. This meant that, as from 12 August 1989, no executive committee of the SITRAINVA had been registered and that section 516 of the Labour Code could not therefore be invoked in this case.
3. 507. As regards the alleged reason for the dismissals - the restructuring of the INVA which the Federation challenges as illegal - the Committee notes that the Government does not comment on this and merely confines itself to stating that any worker who believes himself to have been unlawfully dismissed may, in accordance with the laws and regulations, initiate proceedings which lead to an award of damages. It does not, however, state whether, in this particular case, the workers dismissed from the INVA availed themselves of this right.
4. 508. Since the dismissals affected the entire union executive committee, the Committee asks both the complainant and the Government to indicate the specific reasons which motivated these dismissals so that the Committee is able to determine whether they were based on union activities.