Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO349, March 2008

1. 782. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Workers’ Trade Union of the Social Fund for Housing (SITRAFOSVI) dated 7 June 2007. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 10 August 2007.
2. 783. El Salvador 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. 784. In its communication dated 7 June 2007, SITRAFOSVI alleges that the management of the Social Fund for Housing, an autonomous institution under the Ministry of Public Works, is violating the terms of the collective labour agreement in force relating to the rights of the trade union (negotiation of salary increases, consultation of the trade union on certain matters) and to internal advancement, job stability, holidays and a fund for the protection of workers to guarantee them a decent retirement and payments for services rendered in cases of resignation or dismissal.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 785. In its communication dated 10 August 2007, the Government states that, according to the records of the General Labour Directorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, SITRAFOSVI requested a conciliation meeting on 28 July 2006 with the legal representative of the Social Fund for Housing in order to address the failure to comply with some of the terms of the collective agreement signed by both parties. The conciliation meeting took place on 16 August 2006, at which the employer’s administrative and legal representative claimed that the trade union’s allegations could not be aired at that meeting because, as well as being untrue, they were characteristic of a collective dispute of a legal nature which, in accordance with article 469 of the Labour Code, should come under the jurisdiction of a labour judge.
2. 786. The Government adds that SITRAFOSVI representatives stated that they did not intend to go to court, and were rather requesting a hearing with the president of the Social Fund for Housing in order to maintain a direct dialogue with the employer, a request that did not receive any response from the employer’s representative at that moment.
3. 787. The Government stresses that the trade union did not request the intervention of the labour inspectorate, which monitors compliance with labour legislation, nor did it assert its rights using the legal protection mechanism available through the courts.
4. 788. The Government also states that, on 27 June 2007, the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare held a meeting with the trade union and, after listening to its concerns, exercised his good offices to convince the president of the Social Fund for Housing to receive the trade union members and give them an opportunity to directly address the labour issues in question. The president of the Social Fund for Housing therefore agreed to meet them the following day, with the aim of listening to and initiating a direct dialogue with the workers in order to seek solutions or mutually satisfactory agreements.
5. 789. The Government indicates that to date, the trade union has not repeated its request for the Ministry to intervene, and therefore it presumes that the issues raised in this communication are being addressed through direct negotiation.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 790. The Committee observes that in the present complaint the complainant trade union alleges the violation of various terms of the collective agreement in force at the Social Fund for Housing since it was concluded in 1995.
2. 791. The Committee takes note of the statements of the Government, according to which: (1) on 16 August 2006, a conciliation meeting took place, at which the employer claimed that the conflict in question came within the competence of the judicial authorities and the trade union requested a direct dialogue with the employer; and (2) the trade union did not request the intervention of the labour inspectorate, nor did it initiate legal proceedings. The Committee notes with interest that the Minister of Labour exercised, on 27 June 2007, his good offices to encourage the parties to address their issues directly, to which the president of the Social Fund for Housing agreed.
3. 792. The Committee concludes that the parties are endeavouring to resolve the problems concerning the implementation of the terms of the collective agreement. However, since the allegations suggest that these violations are serious and given that the first conciliation meeting with the management was held in 2006, the Committee encourages the parties to resolve their differences in the very near future and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement and it requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect. The Committee emphasizes the principle that (collective) agreements should be binding on the parties [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 939] and that mutual respect for the commitment undertaken is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Digest, op. cit., para. 940]. The Committee hopes that the parties will take full account of these principles in the future.