Interim Report - REPORT_NO320, March 2000

1. 802. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 9 January 1999 from the Association of Workers and Employees of CONAPROLE (AOEC). The Government replied in a communication dated 15 December 1999.
2. 803. 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. The complainant's allegations

1. 804. In its communication of 9 January 1999, the Association of Workers and Employees of CONAPROLE (AOEC) explains that the National Cooperative of Milk Producers (CONAPROLE) is the county's most important dairy company, employing some 2,300 workers, 75 per cent of whom are AOEC members.
2. 805. According to the AOEC, the union in September, October and November 1997 initiated a number of actions following months of unsuccessful talks aimed at achieving a new collective agreement. The measures included half-hour stoppages, some 24-hour stoppages, etc. In the view of the complainant, the company's actions in response violated the principle of freedom of association and ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Specifically, the AOEC alleges that CONAPROLE:
   • -- broke with the practice of almost 50 years by deciding on 28 October 1997 to stop deductions from wages of workers' union membership dues; this situation was resolved in November once the relevant bipartite or tripartite bodies under the Ministry of Labour had been established;
   • -- when wages were paid for October 1997, the company docked pay for more hours than had actually been spent in stoppages. This affected 300 workers and was tantamount to a sanction for exercising the right to strike;
   • -- between 15 and 30 October 1997, as a result of the union's actions, new sanctions were imposed; warnings concerning low output were issued to 35 workers (at the Tarariras plant), 15 workers were disciplined for a period of between one and three days, tasks were not assigned to a number of workers at the Tarariras plant, including the trade union official Mr. Ramón Vitalis, and an indirect dismissal procedure was started;
   • -- on 4 November 1997, CONAPROLE made a report to the police which resulted in an intimidating police presence at Plant No. 2 in Montevideo and Plant No. 5 in Tarariras;
   • -- sanctions were applied to workers who did not work as a result of the union actions;
   • -- work normally done by workers involved in the union's actions was contracted out to other companies;
   • -- on 5 November 1997, the trade union officials Mr. Ramón Vitalis and Mr. Carlos Allegranza were suspended from their posts at CONAPROLE, despite the fact that they had clean disciplinary records.
3. 806. The complainant adds that an agreement between CONAPROLE and the trade union contained provisions on disciplinary procedures specifying that CONAPROLE should make available to any worker accused of an offence all the relevant records in order to allow him or her to prepare a defence. An agreement was also signed on 20 November 1997 to reinstate Carlos Allegranza at a plant other than the one where he normally worked, and the company also undertook within a period of 90 days to "consider" his reinstatement at his normal place of work before being suspended (this has not happened). Ramón Vitalis, on the other hand, would remain suspended for a maximum period of 60 days on full pay and a bipartite commission would be formed comprising representatives of the Ministry of Labour and the PIT-CNT, the central trade union organization in Uruguay, for the purpose of reviewing the conduct of Mr. Vitalis, on the understanding that the commission's conclusions would be considered by the company when it took a final decision on the matter. However, when the AOEC requested that Mr. Vitalis and Mr. Allegranza be given access to the complete file, the board of the company decided to allow only partial access by submitting only two pages of conclusions and refusing to divulge the names of the persons who had accused them of improper conduct. The company justifies this on the grounds that the persons in question were trusted witnesses of CONAPROLE, supervisors and specially selected officials. The bipartite commission (on which the Ministry of Labour was also represented) ended its deliberations on 30 December 1997 and stated that Mr. Vitalis must be given access to all the relevant records in order to enjoy all the appropriate safeguards. On 2 January 1998, Mr. Vitalis was summoned by the company management and told that only the conclusions of the proceedings would be made available to him. Faced with such a situation, Mr. Vitalis took legal advice and chose to reject the proceedings as being totally invalidated by these gross irregularities, in the light of the agreement that had been reached. He was also on this occasion offered the opportunity to "agree to terms for severance" and warned that more drastic measures would be taken if an agreement was not reached. On 8 January 1998, the AOEC was informed by telephone - unofficially - that Mr. Vitalis had been dismissed for "flagrant misconduct". Information meetings were then held at a number of places of work, in accordance with standard procedures in use for over 30 years. They included Plant No. 3 in Canelones. As a result of these meetings, the three members of the union's executive committee were disciplined.
4. 807. Lastly, the complainant indicates that once the dispute was settled, the management 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. Meetings are prohibited and trade union officials have been barred from entering workplaces, breaking with the established practice of more than 30 years.

B. The Government's reply

1. 808. In its communication of 15 December 1999, the Government states that on 29 October 1997 the General Labour and Social Security Inspectorate received a report from the Association of Workers and Employees of CONAPROLE (AOEC) relating in essence to two main points: (1) an anti-union act in the form of the decision of 28 October 1997 by CONAPROLE management to cancel deductions from wages of union membership dues and other payments that had been made for members of the AOEC; (2) the fact that the company disciplined several workers for implementing measures decided by the union.
2. 809. Regarding the first point, the General Labour Inspectorate had issued a warning to CONAPROLE on 24 November 1998 (a copy is supplied) for its decision in October 1997 to stop deductions of union membership dues, an action which had caused a dispute and led to collective talks in the Ministry of Labour (the complainant indicates that this situation was resolved in November 1997).
3. 810. As regards the second point (disciplinary measures following trade union actions), the National Labour Directorate's Collective Bargaining Division indicates that negotiations between the company CONAPROLE and its employees began in September 1997 and a collective agreement was signed on 24 November 1997 (a copy is supplied by the Government).
4. 811. The Government indicates that, while it is true that cases of disciplinary measures against workers for their participation in union actions were discussed during the collective talks, all the AOEC's reports of such incidents were made verbally and without indicating the names of the workers affected. These cases were dealt with in the collective agreement. The Government also supplies a copy of the acknowledgment of the collective agreement in which the parties set out their respective positions.
5. 812. The collective agreement of 24 November 1997 includes provisions guaranteeing payment of average wages for the period in question and allowing extension of the agreement for up to three years, by agreement of the parties. The agreement also provides that the "disciplinary measures adopted by CONAPROLE during the dispute, which in the view of the union were motivated by the union's actions, expire after thirty days and will not be recorded in the files of any of the workers concerned". As regards the situations of Mr. Allegranza and Mr. Vitalis, the parties agree that "(a) The company board agrees to reinstate Mr. Carlos Allegranza on 21 November 1997 at another plant and within 90 days to consider reinstating him at his original place of work; (b) Mr. Ramón Vitalis will remain suspended for a maximum period of 60 days, during which time his conduct will be reviewed by a commission consisting of members of the National Labour Directorate and the PIT-CNT. The commission will be empowered to summon representatives of the company and the union in order to hear their views. It will also be empowered to hear the parties concerned if they request it. The commission's conclusions will not be binding but will be taken into consideration by the company board as an additional element when taking a final decision".

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 813. The Committee notes that in the present case the complainant has alleged a series of anti-union measures (suspension of deductions from wages of union membership dues, greater wage deductions than were justified by actual hours of stoppages, suspension of trade union officials from their posts, police intervention at places of work, etc.) which were motivated by the actions taken by the AOEC during a collective dispute at the company CONAPROLE in September 1997 following several months of unsuccessful talks aimed at concluding a new collective agreement. The complainant has also alleged that (1) three trade union officials were disciplined following information meetings and (2) company representatives have indicated that any claims made by workers - even in labour courts - will result in a loss of trust in the workers concerned or will be regarded as an act of bad faith, meetings are prohibited and trade union officials are barred from entering places of work, breaking with the established custom of more than 30 years.
2. 814. The Committee takes note of the Government's statements and the collective agreement signed by the parties on 24 November 1997, and in particular of the fact that: (1) the question of the failure of the company CONAPROLE to deduct union membership dues from wages was resolved after one month, as the complainant acknowledges, and the Labour Inspectorate in a ruling of 24 November 1998 issued a warning to the company; (2) under the terms of the collective agreement, the disciplinary measures, which in the union's view were motivated by the union's actions, expire after a period of 30 days and are not recorded in the files of the workers concerned; (3) the company board, in accordance with the collective agreement, agrees to reinstate Mr. Carlos Allegranza and within 90 days to consider his reinstatement at his original place of work; (4) the other trade union official Mr. Ramón Vitalis will remain suspended, in accordance with the collective agreement, and his conduct will be reviewed by a commission made up of representatives of the National Labour Directorate and the PIT-CNT, it being understood that the commission's conclusions will not be binding but will be taken into account by the board in making its decision.
3. 815. Noting that the parties concluded a collective agreement ending the dispute which arose during the collective talks, and noting in particular the fact that the events in question and the collective agreement date back to 1997, the Committee considers that it can do no more than take note of the collective agreement in question and respect the wishes of the parties involved and the manner in which they decided to deal with the matter of the disciplinary measures, particularly given the fact that, according to the Government, the complainant has not provided any details concerning the names of most of the employees who were disciplined and gave only a verbal account of the cases in question. The Committee has recalled on previous occasions, with regard to the reasons for dismissal, the activities of trade union officials should be considered in the context of particular situations which may be especially strained and difficult in cases of labour disputes and strike action (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 731). The Committee therefore asks the Government to ensure that trade union officials enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment such as suspension and dismissals. Noting that, according to the complainant, the bipartite commission agreed that Mr. Vitalis must be given access to all the records in order to enjoy all the appropriate safeguards, the Committee deplores that CONAPROLE informed him that only the conclusions would be made available to him. The Committee firmly hopes that this will be taken into account when the case of Mr. Vitalis is reviewed by the commission.
4. 816. As regards the complainant's allegations that (1) three trade union officials were disciplined following information meetings in January 1998 and (2) CONAPROLE representatives have indicated that any claims by workers, even through the labour courts, will result in a loss of trust in the worker concerned or be considered as an act of bad faith, while meetings have been prohibited and trade union officials have been barred from entering places of work, thus 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.