Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO324, March 2001

1. 912. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2000 meeting, when it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 320th Report, paras. 802-817].
2. 913. The Government had sent observations in communications dated 15 December 1999 and 25 January 2000; however, as these did not cover all the allegations, the Committee was forced to postpone its examination of this case until its meeting in May/June 2000. The Government sent further observations in a communication dated 19 September 2000.
3. 914. Uruguay 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 915. The pending allegations relate to a series of anti-union measures (disciplinary measures against three trade union officials for holding information meetings; the fact that company representatives of CONAPROLE had stated that any claims on the part of workers, even through the labour courts, would result in a loss of trust in the workers concerned or be regarded as an act of bad faith; workers being prohibited from holding meetings; and trade union officials being barred from entering places of work, breaking with the established custom of more than 30 years) arising from the actions taken by the AOEC during a collective dispute which took place at the CONAPROLE company with the support of the employees who wished to achieve a new collective agreement. In its March 2000 meeting the Committee formulated the following conclusions and recommendations [see 320th Report, para. 817]:
2. With regard to the complainant's allegations that (1) three trade union officials were disciplined following information meetings, and (2) CONAPROLE representatives have indicated that any claims by workers, even through the labour courts, would result in a loss of trust in the worker concerned or be regarded as an act of bad faith, while meetings have been prohibited and trade union officials have been barred from entering places of work, breaking with the established custom of more than 30 years, the Committee points out that the Government has not sent its observations on the matter and requests it to do so.
3. B. The Government's reply
4. 916. As regards the pending allegations, the Government states in its communication of 19 September 2000 that labour relations at the CONAPROLE company are in the process of constructive dialogue, with specific agreements between the parties encouraging efforts for "decent work". The Government attaches copies of these agreements.
5. 917. On 9 January 1999 a hearing took place at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to tackle the crisis confronting the company due to difficulties in exporting to Brazil. Although the trade union did not initially accept the proposals for a possible postponement of wage increases and that workers draw unemployment benefits, on 27 January 1999, after several meetings, it signed a record of agreement on mechanisms for workers to draw unemployment benefits. However, in relation to the latter, it should be pointed out that the AOEC did not accept to postpone the wage increase for 1 February 1999, although it did agree to this possibility being discussed at a meeting of the workers. Neither did the AOEC accept multiskilling, although it did accept to examine possible changes in production processes with representatives of CONAPROLE, keeping in mind the agreements already reached. The parties also agreed to establish a bipartite committee immediately to oversee the analysis of this issue. They also agreed to establish a commission to examine developments in the situation in February 1999 and to set the criteria for workers to draw unemployment benefits in future months, if necessary. CONAPROLE undertook to provide the commission with the list of those to be laid off in the months to come. Finally, the trade union agreed to workers being put on unemployment benefits from 1 February 1999, so long as all those who had been laid off for the month of February were reintegrated on 1 March 1999. With regard to the remaining cases, the commission undertook to examine the possibility of extending unemployment benefits.
6. 918. On 11 June 1999 a dispute arose over the hiring of staff from outside CONAPROLE while there were staff already receiving unemployment benefits. Following mediation by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the dispute ended on 17 June 1999 with a bipartite agreement in which it was agreed that communication would take place prior to hiring staff from outside the company and labour relations would be flexible. Under the agreement of 9 August 1999 a commission was set up within the company's labour relations commission to support reinstatement.
7. 919. On 17 August 1999 a process of negotiation to restructure the warehouse and dispatch area of CONAPROLE was begun. The parties reached an agreement on this restructuring on 23 September 1999.
8. 920. On 27 April 2000 the Ministry of Labour and Social Security intervened in the restructuring of plant No. 5 of CONAPROLE, and this resulted in the signing of an agreement between representatives of AOEC and the management of CONAPROLE on 14 July 2000. Under this collective agreement CONAPROLE will contribute the cost of the land for those workers who agree to be transferred and will support the construction of homes for those workers with a special compensation scheme.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 921. The Committee notes that the pending allegations from the previous examination of the case centre around the fact that three trade union officials were disciplined following information meetings; that CONAPROLE representatives indicated that any claims by workers, even through the labour courts, would result in a loss of trust in the worker concerned or would be regarded as an act of bad faith, while meetings were prohibited and trade union officials were barred from entering places of work, breaking with the established custom of more than 30 years.
2. 922. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government did not send any observations, and confined itself to indicating that the CONAPROLE enterprise was currently in the process of constructive dialogue in which the adoption of specific agreements between the parties to encourage efforts for "decent work" was proposed (the Government attached photocopies of the various agreements and contracts signed by the company and the employees to that effect).
3. 923. In this respect, the Committee emphasizes the right of occupational organizations to hold meetings in their premises to discuss occupational questions, without prior authorization and interference by the authorities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 130]. Furthermore, the Committee highlights 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, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures, and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions [see Digest, op. cit., para. 724].
4. 924. As the Government did not submit observations, the Committee requests it to ensure that the disciplinary measures against the three trade union officials for holding information meetings are immediately revoked, and that trade union officials are allowed reasonable access to the workplace so that they may, in their abovementioned capacity, effectively fulfil their mandate unhindered to further and defend the interests of workers [see Article 10 of Convention No. 87].
5. 925. As regards the freedom of workers of CONAPROLE to express their dissatisfaction, without being intimidated or subject to reprisals by their employer, the Committee emphasizes that the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and that to this end workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 152]. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to inform it of the steps taken to comply with the abovementioned rights, in the light of the principles of freedom of association.