Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO340, March 2006

1353. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2004 meeting [see 335th Report, paras. 1379-1396]. On that occasion, it submitted an interim report to the Governing Body. At its November 2005 meeting, the Committee addressed an urgent appeal to the Government to send complete observations [see 338th Report, para. 11]. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 24 February 2006.

1. 1354. 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. 1355. At its November 2004 meeting, the Committee observed that the complainant organizations alleged that, after participating in the May Day celebrations in 2002, several workers in the dock sector ceased to be hired by the PLANIR S.A. company and other companies belonging to a group, and that a blacklist was drawn up preventing the dockworkers on the list from obtaining work. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendation [see 335th Report, para. 1396]:
2. The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the investigation requested from the Inspectorate of Labour into the grave allegations submitted by the SUANP and the PIT-CNT is rapidly completed and expresses the hope that the investigation will cover all the matters mentioned by the complainants. The Committee requests the Government to send the results of the investigation in question so that it can pronounce itself on the basis of all the elements.
3. B. The Government’s reply
4. 1356. In its communication of 24 February 2006, the Government indicates that a negotiating table was set up under the auspices of the National Directorate of Labour (DINATRA) with representatives of the workers and the PLANIR S.A. enterprise and the further participation of the General Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security (IGTSS). This negotiating table functioned from 22 May 2002 to 14 June 2002. Faced with the unsuccessful results of the negotiations, the SUANP notified the IGTSS on 9 November 2004 of the complaint presented to the ILO and an administrative process was initiated in order to clarify the denounced facts (file 10059/04). At that time, the PLANIR S.A. enterprise was sanctioned with a fine of 150 readjusted units by a resolution of the IGTSS dated 3 November 2005, for violating Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and article 57 of the Constitution.
5. 1357. The Government indicates that the enterprise appealed against the abovementioned resolution claiming its reversal and hierarchical re-examination, but the resolution was confirmed by the IGTSS resolution of 28 November 2005 and the resolution of the Director-General of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security under the power vested in him on 26 January 2006. The means of administrative recourse were thereby exhausted. However, the enterprise still has the possibility to request the quashing of the administrative act, as well as its suspension (that is, the non-payment of the fine) before the Administrative Tribunal.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1358. The Committee recalls that the complainant organizations had alleged that, after participating in the May Day celebrations in 2002, several workers in the dock sector had ceased to be hired by the PLANIR S.A. enterprise and other enterprises belonging to a group, and that a blacklist had been drawn up preventing the dockworkers on the list from obtaining work. At its November 2004 meeting, the Committee noted that the Government had requested the General Inspectorate of Labour to conduct an investigation into the allegations and, in that context, requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the investigation requested from the Inspectorate of Labour into the grave allegations submitted by the SUANP and the PIT-CNT was rapidly completed and expressed the hope that the investigation would cover all the matters mentioned by the complainants [see 335th Report, para. 1396].
2. 1359. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) a negotiating table was set up under the auspices of the National Directorate of Labour (DINATRA) with representatives of the workers and the PLANIR S.A. enterprise and the further participation of the General Inspectorate for Labour and Social Security (IGTSS); this negotiating table functioned from 22 May 2002 until 14 June 2002; (2) faced with the unsuccessful results of the negotiations, the SUANP notified the IGTSS on 9 November 2004 of the complaint presented to the ILO and an administrative process was initiated in order to clarify the denounced facts; (3) the PLANIR S.A. enterprise was sanctioned with a fine of 150 readjusted units by a resolution of the IGTSS dated 3 November 2005, for violating Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and article 57 of the Constitution; (4) the enterprise appealed against the abovementioned resolution claiming its reversal and hierarchical re-examination, but the resolution was confirmed by the IGTSS and the Director-General of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security; and (5) the means of administrative recourse were thereby exhausted. However, the enterprise still has the possibility to request the quashing of the administrative act, as well as its suspension (that is, the non-payment of the fine) before the Administrative Tribunal.
3. 1360. The Committee regrets the delay in the investigation of this case and requests the Government to inform it whether the enterprise has had recourse to the Administrative Tribunal against the fine imposed by the administrative authority and, if so, to inform it of the outcome. If no appeal has been made, the Committee expects that the fine will have been paid by the employer so as to serve as a dissuassive measure for any future acts of anti-union discrimination.