Interim Report - REPORT_NO333, March 2004

1. 1002. The Committee last examined this case at its May-June 2002 meeting and on that occasion submitted an interim report [see 328th Report, paras. 606-616, approved by the Governing Body at its 284th meeting (June 2002)]. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 30 December 2003.
2. 1003. 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. 1004. When it examined this case at its May-June 2002 meeting, the Committee, noting that the Government stated that an administrative investigation was under way, which was initiated following a complaint lodged by the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU) against the Savings and Loans Cooperative of Officials of the Armed Forces (CAOFA) for anti-union acts (the denouncement of the collective agreement in force by the CAOFA once it became aware of the intentions of the union leaders of the cooperative to become affiliated to the AEBU, the dismissal and transfer of a number of trade union members and threats of dismissal of workers who joined the AEBU), made the following recommendations [see 328th Report, para. 616]:
2. – the Committee urges the Government to: (1) take measures to ensure that the administrative investigation under way, of which it was informed in June 2001, is immediately concluded; (2) ensure that the investigation covers all the allegations made by the complainant in this case; and (3) communicate its observations, based on the information obtained in this respect;
3. – the Committee requests the Government that, if it finds that the dismissals and transfers in this case have occurred for anti-union reasons, it apply the sanctions laid down in the national legislation, referred to in its reply (a fine and the imposition of a legal penalty to pay special compensation), and to mediate between the parties in order to obtain the reinstatement of those workers affected.
4. B. The Government’s reply
5. 1005. In its communication of 30 December 2003, the Government states that in accordance with the decision of 28 April 2003 of the General Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security it was decided to penalize the Savings and Loans Cooperative of Officials of the Armed Forces (CAOFA) for violation of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in dismissing workers because of their trade union membership with a fine of 690 variable units (the equivalent of US$5,347). The Government indicates that the CAOFA lodged administrative appeals against the administrative decision in question.
6. 1006. Moreover, the Government sends a copy of Decision No. 78 of the Labour Court of First Instance, relating to the dismissal of the six workers in question for having joined the AEBU trade union, for which the CAOFA was sentenced to pay compensation for ordinary dismissal, abusive dismissal, leave, holiday pay and bonuses, and a further 25 per cent for damages and losses.
7. 1007. Finally, the Government states that, as a result of the application of national law, it is not in a position to reinstate the dismissed worker, even given the evidence of anti-union persecution.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1008. The Committee recalls that, in the present case, the complainant organization had alleged: (i) that the Savings and Loans Cooperative for Officials of the Armed Forces (CAOFA) denounced the collective agreement in force once it became aware of the intentions of union leaders of the cooperative to become affiliated to the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU); (ii) the dismissal of members of this trade union (Nelson Corbo, Eduardo Cevallos, Gonzalo Ribas, Andrea Oyharbide, Gerardo Olivieri and Marcelo Almadía) and the transfer of another member (Virginia Orrego); and (iii) that workers joining the AEBU were threatened with dismissal. Moreover, the Committee recalls that at its June 2002 meeting, it requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the administrative investigation, of which it was informed in June 2001, was immediately concluded, that the investigation covered all the allegations made by the complainant in the case and that the sanctions laid down in national legislation were applied, and to mediate between the parties in order to obtain the reinstatement of those workers affected.
2. 1009. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) the judicial authority of the first instance, in July 2002, sentenced the CAOFA to pay compensation for ordinary dismissal, plus compensation for abusive dismissal (with regard to abusive dismissal, the sentence indicated that “the complaint lodged should be conceded given that the nature of the plaintiffs’ tasks, their participation in negotiations at the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, requesting regularization of their situation in the face of infringements by the employer, and their membership of the AEBU have been proven, and that it has not been proven, according to the judicial authority that the alleged restructuring was the reason for these dismissals”; (2) a decision handed down by the National Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security, dated April 2003, penalized the CAOFA for having dismissed workers because of their trade union membership with a fine of 690 variable units – the equivalent of US$5,347 – (this decision indicated that “it has been certified in decrees that the company carried out acts of anti-union discrimination that culminated in the dismissal of the trade union board”); (3) that the CAOFA lodged administrative appeals against this decision; and (4) the administrative authority, as a result of the application of national law, is not in a position to reinstate the dismissed worker, even given the evidence of anti-union persecution.
3. 1010. In this respect, the Committee recalls that “the dismissal of workers on grounds of membership of an organization or trade union activities violates the principles of freedom of association” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 702]. Noting that both the judicial authority and the administrative authority had established that the dismissal of the six trade union members in question arose as a result of their trade union membership, the Committee believes that this case involves with a serious violation of trade union rights and, in these circumstances: (1) it requests the Government to provide information on whether the legal decision of July 2002 has been carried out; (2) it requests the Government to take measures to expedite the administrative appeals lodged by the CAOFA against the administrative decision of April 2003 and provide information on the outcome; and (3) it once again requests the Government to mediate immediately between the parties in order to obtain the reinstatement without loss of pay of those workers affected.
4. 1011. Finally, the Committee regrets to note that the Government makes no reference to the allegations relating to: (i) the denouncement of the collective agreement by the CAOFA once it became aware of the intentions of union leaders of the cooperative to become affiliated to the AEBU; (ii) the transfer of trade union member Virginia Orrego; and (iii) the threats to dismiss workers who joined the AEBU. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to send its observations in this respect without delay.