Interim Report - REPORT_NO333, March 2004

1. 1013. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2002 meeting [see 329th Report, paras. 779-798]. AFCASMU submitted new allegations on 15 June 2003.
2. 1014. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 22 December 2003.
3. 1015. 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. 1016. At its November 2002 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 329th Report, para. 798]:
   • (a) taking into account the circumstances of this case, the Committee requests the Government to indicate why the CASMU preventively suspended 46 workers from their duties without pay and instituted proceedings against them. Also, given that they were reinstated five days after the day of the partial strike, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether these workers were paid the wages withheld during the five days that the examination procedures lasted, and also whether these workers still run the risk of being punished or whether the disciplinary proceedings have been filed. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect; and
   • (b) the Committee notes with concern the allegation relating to the proceedings instituted against five workers of the CASMU for having participated in a protest organized by the trade union outside the workplace in response to economic measures adopted by the Government, and requests the Government to communicate its observations in this respect without delay and in particular to inform it about the result of the proceedings in question.

B. New allegations

1. 1017. In its communication of 15 June 2003, the complainant organization, referring to subparagraph (b) of the Committee’s recommendations, alleges the dismissal of Graciela Sadi, Daniel Fernández, Julio César Ximénez, Héctor Pereira and Cyro Simoes in June 2003, against whom proceedings had been instituted for having participated in a protest during the visit of the President of the Republic to a teaching facility near the workplace.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 1018. In its communication of 22 December 2003, the Government indicates, with regard to the administrative proceedings carried out by the technical/administrative management of the CASMU and the suspension without pay of the workers who participated in the strike of 14 January 2002, that these proceedings concluded on 21 January 2002 with the decision to lift the preventive suspension of the workers and reinstate them to their posts. For this reason and taking into account that, with the workers having been reinstated, there no longer existed any threat of infringement of rights, the appeal for legal protection (an exceptional and unusual recourse) lodged by the complainant organization was refused, leaving the parties with the possibility of ordinary judicial recourse. The Government adds that the labour inspectorate has received no complaint and that it will keep the Committee informed of any ordinary judicial proceedings begun by the complainant organization.
2. 1019. With regard to the proceedings against five trade union members for their participation in a protest against the President of the Republic, the Government states that it has notified the management of the CASMU to provide information on the means of dismissal adopted and the General Labour Inspectorate so that it may carry out an administrative investigation without a complaint having been laid, and that once it has received this information it will inform the Committee.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1020. The Committee notes that the present complaint refers to: (1) the institution of administrative proceedings and the suspension without pay of 46 of the 78 workers who took part in a strike on 14 January 2002 at the Assistance Centre of the Medical Trade Union of Uruguay (CASMU) because of persistent delays in payment of wages and the failure to pay holiday pay; and (2) the institution of administrative proceedings and the subsequent dismissal of five trade union members, Graciela Sadi, Daniel Fernández, Julio César Ximénez, Héctor Pereira and Cyro Simoes, because of their participation in a protest against the President of the Republic outside working hours.
2. 1021. The Committee recalls that in its previous examination of the case it had requested the Government to indicate why the CASMU preventively suspended 46 workers from their duties without pay and instituted proceedings against them, and also to indicate whether, once these workers were reinstated, they were paid the wages withheld during the five days that the examination proceedings lasted. The Committee regrets to note that, in spite of the time that has passed since its last examination of the case (November 2002), the Government has not provided the requested information and has merely repeated the reasons why the appeal for protection (which is an exceptional and unusual recourse) was refused because these workers were reinstated and that the parties had the possibility of ordinary judicial recourse. The Committee, once again, requests the Government to send the information requested without delay.
3. 1022. With regard to the administrative proceedings and subsequent dismissal of Graciela Sadi, Daniel Fernández, Julio César Ximénez, Héctor Pereira and Cyro Simoes allegedly because of their participation in a protest against the President of the Republic, the Committee also regrets to note that in spite of the lengthy period of time that has passed since its last examination of the case, the Government has confined itself to providing the information that it has notified the CASMU to provide information on these measures and has notified the General Labour Inspectorate so that it may begin an administrative investigation without any complaint having been laid. The Committee recalls that it is contrary to the principles of freedom of association that trade union members be dismissed as a result of their participation in protest actions, which, according to what can be deduced from the present case, took place peacefully. The Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the administrative investigation concludes without delay and should it show that the dismissals arose as a result of the participation of the trade union members in the protest, that it take steps to ensure the workers’ reinstatement in their posts. The Committee requests the Government to send it all decisions handed down in this respect.