Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO365, November 2012

1. 315. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 9 May 2011 from the National Association of Officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (ANFDGAC). ANFDGAC sent additional information in a communication dated 16 August 2011.
2. 316. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 14 May 2012.
3. 317. Chile has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 318. In its communication of 9 May 2011, ANFDGAC indicates that it is a national organization of officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGAC), a unit of the Public Administration of Chile. It states that, in accordance with Act No. 19296, the structure of ANFDGAC includes a national directorate and regional and provincial directorates, recognized under a labour inspectorate certificate of validity establishing and managing trade union activity in the DGAC. Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira and Mr Javier Norambuena Morales are, respectively, third national director and regional secretary of Concepción, and national and regional secretary of the Punta Arenas branch, and Mr Dalivor Eterovic Díaz and Mr Rodrigo Leficura Sánchez are the regional directors of the Punta Arenas branch.
2. 319. The complainant alleges that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, through special resolution No. 0363 of 25 March 2010, adopted the first edition of the internal procedure known as PRO.DRH No. 23 on the recording of leave of the directors of the associations of officials of the DGAC, in accordance with Act No. 19296. The complainant notes that the ANFDGAC repeatedly challenged the aviation authority’s decision to restrict trade union immunities through the use of the abovementioned internal procedure, including through the following petitions: (1) a complaint appeal was submitted to the Director-General of Civil Aviation in ANFDGAC letter No. 39/1/2010 dated 19 April 2010; (2) a complaint appeal was submitted to the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic in ANFDGAC letter No. 52/1/2010 dated 10 May 2010; (3) opinion No. 75117 dated 14 December 2010 was issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, which, in general terms, validated PRO.DRH No. 23; and (4) an appeal for reconsideration was submitted to the Comptroller General of the Republic in ANFDGAC letter No. 38/1/2011 dated 19 April 2011. There has been no response to date.
3. 320. According to the complainant, Act No. 19296 does not provide for setting down rules on the use of leave entitlement, yet senior management adopted measures to record respective leaves of absence. Indeed, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation published an internal procedure regulating union leave set out under Act No. 19296 known as PRO.DRH No. 23, under sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 which state: “2.2.1. Leave time is 11 hours per week for each director representing the association of officials of the DGAC at the respective regional level, and 22 hours per week for each association director at the national level.” “2.2.4. Directors may exceed the allotted time in the event of duly verified summons by public officials.”
4. 321. According to the complainant, the wording of the above points enabled the Director General of Civil Aviation to initiate two administrative procedures against the four above-cited ANFDGAC officials, as it enabled the aviation authority to convert the minimum leave limit under Act No. 19296 into a maximum leave limit. In that regard, the complainant notes that, between 30 August and 3 September 2010, Carriel Sur Airport in Concepción was the subject of a special audit No. 15/2010, which stated that, “after examining the time sheets and staff shift schedules for the period from January to August 2010, attached hereto, pertaining to AVSEC official Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira, member of the DGAC trade union, and third national director and regional secretary of Concepción, it was determined that he had not met the legal monthly working hours and consequently, no deduction was made for the hours not worked during that period”. Furthermore: “The foregoing is in violation of article 65 of Act No. 18834 (Administrative Statute) on the normal working hours for officials, which should be 44 hours a week; officials must thus perform their duties continuously during normal working hours, which Mr Fuentealba Pincheira failed to do. In light of the above, and in accordance with the legal standard, the hours mentioned above, which amount to 146 hours, should have been deducted from the money due to Mr Fuentealba.” In this regard, attention is drawn to ANFDGAC letter No. 151/1/2010 dated 6 December 2010, which sets out the relevant observations relating to the special audit report in question.
5. 322. ANFDGAC adds that on 14 October 2010, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, through DGAC resolution No. 30, ordered administrative proceedings with a view to determining possible administrative responsibilities in connection with the report prepared by the internal auditor of the DGAC through official communication (O) No. 03/0/239 dated 23 September 2010, in the light of the findings from the internal audit and that of the Director-General. In addition, on 24 November 2010, the Subdepartment of the Southern Airport Zone was subjected to a full audit No. 17/2010. This audit presented various findings relating to the compliance by the three regional directors – the regional president, Dalivor Eterovic Díaz, the regional treasurer, Rodrigo Leficura Sánchez and the regional and national secretary, Javier Norambuena Morales – with the legal monthly working hours. In that context, ANFDGAC letter No. 02/1/2011, dated 12 January 2011, set out the relevant observations on this full audit report. On 30 November 2010, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, through DGAC resolution No. 36, ordered administrative proceedings to investigate non-compliance with the legal monthly working hours of the directors of the Association of Officials of the Southern Airport Zone mentioned in audit report No. 17/2010, with a view to determining the possible administrative responsibilities that may arise from such facts.
6. 323. On 17 November 2010, the investigating prosecutor, having established a series of facts on the case, decided to close the investigation step in the administrative proceedings instituted against the national and regional director, Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira, bringing his conclusions before the Director-General of Civil Aviation without charges. On 2 March 2011, the Director-General of Civil Aviation decided to reopen the administrative proceedings, instituted under DGAC resolution No. 33 of 14 October 2010, on the grounds that proceedings remain pending, with a view to confirming the complaint lodged by the internal audit office of the DGAC, appointing the official Mr Eduardo Demanet Hurtado as the investigating prosecutor.
7. 324. The complainant organization notes that on 2 May 2011, the Investigating Prosecutor, pursuant to the abovementioned DGAC resolution and DGAC resolution of 2 March 2011, stated that the Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira was charged with the following: Having repeatedly failed to adhere to his working hours, accumulating 171 hours of service absence in the audited period from January to August 2010. Consequently, by virtue of exceeding the maximum leave entitlement of 33 hours per week for trade union officials, without registering any request for the accumulation or transfer of hours within the relevant calendar month, or having duly verified any summons by a public official, as required under the applicable legislation (Act No. 19296 and PRO.DRH No. 23), such behaviour is in violation of article 61(d) of DFL 29 and article 31 of Act No. 19296.
8. 325. According to the complainant, the charges arising from the administrative proceedings against the national director Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira amount to a violation of article 61(d) of DFL No. 29 which states: “The strict observance of the principle of administrative integrity implies morally unimpeachable conduct on the part of officials and honest and loyal service with a view above all to the public interest rather than private interest.” Furthermore, article 125 states: “The decision of dismissal falls to the appointing authority competent to terminate the services of an official. The disciplinary measure of dismissal can be applied only when the facts constituting the offence are in serious violation of the principle of administrative integrity.”
9. 326. The complainant indicates that, to date, no charges have been brought against Mr Dalivor Eterovic Díaz, Mr Rodrigo Leficura Sánchez or Mr Javier Norambuena Morales in the administrative proceedings ordered under DGAC resolution No. 36 of 30 November 2011. Nevertheless, as both audits present the same arguments, it is expected that these directors will have the same kinds of charges levied against them as those brought against Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira. The complainant considers that all of the above has enabled the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to flagrantly violate freedom of association by disrupting, threatening and denying the legitimate exercise of leave as set out under Act No. 19296, constituting acts of anti-union discrimination and retaliation against the directors by denying trade union immunities through instituting the relevant administrative proceedings with a view to dismissing the ANFDGAC union officials.
10. 327. In a communication dated 16 August 2011, the complainant alleges that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation adopted instructions interfering with trade union activity, which ban the posting of canvas signs, notices and banners in the premises under the administration of the Directorate, such as airports, aerodromes or other premises which have not been authorized.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 328. In its communication dated 14 May 2012, the Government reports that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation states the following about the allegations.
2. 329. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation states that it totally rejects the allegations contained in the ANFDGAC complaint, since they are untrue and, conversely, the actions taken by the DGAC on the matter were strictly in accordance with current legislation and the international conventions signed and ratified by Chile.
3. 330. It states that the directors of the association of officials enjoy trade union immunity, protection against dismissal and the right to trade union leave as provided in Act No. 19296, as well as the prerogative to be exempt from undergoing an annual appraisal. Thus, the special status accorded to them would ensure their independence in the proper exercise of their trade union duties.
4. 331. It adds that the rules governing the leave of union officials of the association of officials are set forth in articles 31 and 32 of Act No. 19296; that whenever an ANFDGAC national or regional election has been held, the corresponding trade union immunities and legal benefits have been implemented; that in the DGAC there is a national association of officials that elects seven national directors and 49 regional directors; and that every week each of these officials has a right to 22 and 11 hours of leave respectively, which can be amalgamated should the same person simultaneously hold the post of national and regional director. Thus, it notes that the abovementioned officials benefit from 11 hours of leave as regional directors and 22 hours as national directors in a statutory 44-hour working week, i.e. should they play both roles, they devote 75 per cent of their working week to trade union duties and must perform the duties required under their appointments or contracts for the remaining 25 per cent of the working week. This would be the case for the directors Mr Guillermo Martínez San Juan, Mr Cristián Fuentealba Pincheira, Mr Manuel Soto Vega, Mr Víctor Hernández Maulen and Mr Javier Norambuena Morales.
5. 332. The DGAC authorities also state that its unit has fully complied with the rules on officials’ leave, adhering strictly to the law, granting the 51 elected directors the leave they are legally entitled to and refraining from assigning duties to those officials. The officials of the association would also have benefited from other leave in addition to that explicitly provided for in legislation, under article 31 of Act No. 19296, as long as it has been requested in accordance with the instructions of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. This supervisory body has stated that, should the fulfilment of trade union tasks require extra time, the competent authority, in exercising its general managerial powers, may authorize or refuse any new leave. They state that, notwithstanding the foregoing, ANFDGAC officials may fully participate in training, membership of working groups and activities connected with contests, appraisals, etc., none of which are deemed to fall under the item of trade union leave entitlement.
6. 333. They also mention that the Internal Audit Unit undertook as part of its duties internal monitoring, which led to the discovery that there were officials in Concepción and Punta Arenas aerodromes who were failing to work the statutory monthly working hours, and in particular that there was inadequate monitoring of the attendance and leave of at least three officials. Moreover, of the two administrative procedures referred to in the complaint, one was still under consideration and the other acquitted the officials involved, as it was verified that, despite the fact that they had been repeatedly absent from duty, exceeding leave hour entitlement, the investigation revealed that there were reasons exempting the staff concerned from administrative responsibility, thus concluding the disciplinary process.
7. 334. Lastly, the DGAC authorities state that there has been no anti-union practice, nor any acts of retaliation. They also reiterate that the unit has granted all officials of the association of officials, be they national or regional, the right to the leave to which they are legally entitled, thus guaranteeing the exercise of their trade union duties and adhering to the trade union immunity granted under the law, but requiring compliance with current regulations applicable to all public employees.
8. 335. For its part, the Government states the following with respect to the allegations. Act No. 19296, which “Sets forth Rules on Associations of Officials of the State Administration”, stipulates in article 31 that:
   • Senior management of the respective division shall grant the necessary leave to allow the directors of associations to be absent from their work to carry out their duties outside of the workplace, which shall be no less than 22 hours per week for each director of a national association, or 11 hours for each director of a regional, provincial or communal association, or which has at least one or more health facilities, and for each regional or provincial director to be elected in accordance with article 17, subparagraph 2.
   • Weekly leave entitlement shall be accumulated by each director over the relevant calendar month and each director may transfer to one or more of the other officials all or part of the leave entitlement due to him/her, provided that written notice is given to the senior management of the respective division.
   • However, the limit specified in the aforementioned subparagraphs may be exceeded in the event of a duly certified summons being served on directors of associations, in their capacity as such, by the public authorities, and such summons must be duly verified if required by the senior management of the respective division. The extra hours will not be counted as the hours referred to in the above subparagraphs. The period included in the leave granted to the directors of associations will be deemed to be hours worked for all intents and purposes, thus maintaining the right to remuneration.
9. 336. The Government adds that, at the same time, article 32 of the Act states:
   • Entitlement to the following leave, in addition to that specified in the abovementioned article, shall be granted to:
     • (a) The directors of associations, with the consent of the respective assembly, adopted in accordance with its statutes, may, while keeping their position, be excused from their obligation to provide their full or part-time services in the division in which they are employed, provided that it takes place for a period of no more than six months over the whole period of their term in office.
     • (b) The officials may also, in accordance with the association’s statutes, take up to five working days of leave in the calendar year to undertake activities that were necessary or deemed to be essential in order to carry out their duties as officials, or to strengthen their capacity as officials.
   • In the cases described in the foregoing, the directors of the association shall inform, in writing and at least ten days in advance, the senior management of the respective division of the circumstances requiring the use of this extra time.
10. 337. The Government states that the salaries, benefits and pension contributions borne by the division during the leave periods referred to in this article and subparagraph 1 of the subsequent article shall be paid by the respective association, but only when the period of paid leave to which the directors are entitled is exceeded, in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph 1 of the aforementioned article.
11. 338. For its part, the DGAC established an internal procedure “to record the leave of the directors of the DGAC associations of officials, as provided in Act No. 19296 on Workers Associations in the State Administration”, also known as PRO.DRH No. 23.
    • The regulation provides in section 2.2.1: “Leave time is 11 hours per week for each director representing the association of officials of the DGAC at the respective regional level, and 22 hours per week for each association director at the national level.”
    • While section 2.2.4 of the instrument provides that: “Directors may exceed the allotted time in the event of duly verified summons by public officials.”
12. 339. In the light of the foregoing, the Government notes that the above regulation ensures strict adherence to the principle of freedom of association in the context of trade union officials’ leave since, rather than restricting trade union rights in any way, the DGAC authorities, in issuing an internal instruction, did no more than specify the minimum period of 11 or 22 hours stipulated in Act No. 19296. Periods exceeding this minimum of hours may be authorized or granted by the authority, in strict compliance with the managerial obligation that falls upon the authorities.
13. 340. With regard to establishing the internal procedure, the DGAC authorities developed the so called PRO.DRH No. 23 to ensure an effective department and adequate monitoring, in accordance with article 5 of Act No. 18575, which requires the authorities and officials to provide an efficient public administration, ensuring the best use of the instruments available to them. Thus, they merely established a monitoring mechanism for officials’ leave, as permitted under domestic legislation, and the transfer and accumulation of leave hours, as it was necessary to have a tool to allow the recording of the leave actually taken by each of them.
14. 341. The foregoing is in line with the administrative case law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, which maintained in opinion No. 6171 of 2009 that the authority may adopt any measures it deems appropriate to verify that the leave in question does not exceed the time specified in Act No. 10296 and to require officials not only to give timely notice of their absences, but also to record each period of absence.
15. 342. Administrative procedures therefore constitute Chile’s administrative mechanism for investigating incidents within public departments in order to clarify administrative responsibilities; thus, the Government considers that it cannot be argued that by merely instituting them the rights to which the directors of association are entitled are being infringed. Similarly, the Office of the Comptroller has noted in its consistent case law that the officials retain their functionary linkage and continue to be subject to the rules of their respective statutes, meaning that should those be violated they would incur administrative responsibility, as specified in opinion No. 46592 of 2000 and other legislation.
16. 343. Furthermore, article 66 of Act No. 19296 recognizes that the directors may incur administrative responsibility in the performance of their duties, i.e. in fulfilling trade union objectives. Thus, the ANFDGAC directors are required to fulfil their usual working day, incurring administrative responsibility if no valid grounds are found for their absence. Otherwise, there would be constant abuse, which would contravene the constitutional principle of equality before the law, exploiting the provision contained in article 31 of Act No. 19296 in order to avoid compliance with the working hours of all public officials.
17. 344. Lastly, the Government adds that the administrative statute regulates and adequately guarantees the rights of interested parties, establishing the right to appear, give evidence, draw up defences and be legally notified and, in the event of being penalized, they had the right to make complaints to the relevant review bodies. In particular, any decision that is handed down in administrative procedures must be sent to the Office of the Comptroller so that an analysis can be made of the legality and constitutionality.
18. 345. In the light of the foregoing, the DGAC instituted two administrative procedures against the trade union officials (one of which ended in the acquittal of the officials, as previously mentioned), in respect of which an appeal was lodged with the higher hierarchical authority and subsequently a claim was filed with the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, to obtain an opinion on the legality of the procedure adopted by the Directorate General to record the directors’ leave, claiming that the regulation amounted to an anti-union practice and violated national and international rules governing the issue.
19. 346. In turn, the monitoring body issued opinion No. 75117 of 14 December 2010, through which a legal analysis of the internal procedure (PRO.DRH No. 23) was made, concluding that it is in accordance with current domestic and international legislation. This conclusion was based on the fact that, while Act No. 19296 does not provide for the possibility of issuing rules on the exercise of the right to leave, it does not preclude senior management from adopting measures, since it is responsible for ensuring the unit’s progress and, as such, may take all necessary steps to enable the normal development of the institution. Thus, the national directorate can ask trade union officials to record any absences due to performing the tasks required of them in that capacity, i.e. there may be monitoring in place to prevent directors from using the allowance for purposes other than for those legally granted.
20. 347. However, the Board of Directors of the ANFDGAC, unsatisfied with this ruling, asked for the decision to be reconsidered, arguing that the procedure known as PRO.DRH No. 23 was unlawful. As a result, the Office of the Comptroller supplemented its prior ruling with opinion No. 43894 of 12 July 2011, reiterating its previous conclusions, i.e. that the procedure contested is lawful and that the manner in which points 2.2.1 and 2.2.4 have been drafted cannot be interpreted to mean that a maximum number of hours is being specified for trade union officials’ leave entitlement, reiterating that it was up to senior management whether or not to grant hours exceeding the minimum provided for under the rule in question.
21. 348. In respect of that conclusion, the Office of the Comptroller maintained that, if carrying out trade union activities required more time, the competent authority, in the exercise of its managerial powers, may authorize or refuse new leave, citing prior rulings.
22. 349. The Government states that the DGAC has adopted the measures in the exercise of the powers granted to department heads under domestic law and which are based on the case law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic. They were not intended to restrict or violate the exercise of the rights granted to directors of the associations of officials under Act No. 19296 and, despite the adoption of those measures, the directors of the association have exercised their rights under Act No. 19296, enjoying the leave entitlement set forth in current regulations.
23. 350. Lastly, the Government states that it is important to note that no anti-union act, or violation of ILO Conventions Nos 87, 98 and 151, has taken place because the DGAC authorities acted within the law. There have been appeals to the administrative authorities, as provided under the law, with supervisory bodies handing down their respective rulings, which maintain that they acted lawfully in implementing procedure PRO.DRH No. 23. In addition to the foregoing, on a weekly basis each national and regional director took his relevant legal leave entitlement, namely eleven (11), twenty two (22) or thirty three (33) hours, without the internal monitoring procedure in place causing any obstacle whatsoever to the exercise of the legal right.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 351. The Committee observes that in this complaint the complainant organization objects to internal procedure PRO.DRH No. 23 for recording the leave of the directors of the associations of officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation as set out under Act No. 19296 on the associations of state administration. The complainant organization alleges that: (1) Act No. 19296 does not provide for setting down rules on the use of leave entitlement, whereas this was nevertheless set out under PRO.DRH No. 23; (2) PRO.DRH provides for 11 hours per week of leave for each director representing ANFDGAC and 22 hours per week for each national association director, and indicates that the directors may exceed the allotted time in the case of duly verified summons by public authorities; (3) the drafting of this procedure has enabled officials of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation to institute administrative procedures against four ANFDGAC officials (Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira, Mr Javier Norambuena Morales, Mr Dalivor Eterovic Díaz and Mr Rodrigo Leficura Sánchez) since the aviation authority converted the minimum leave limit under Law No. 19296 into a maximum leave limit (to date, charges have been brought against Mr Cristian Fuentealba Pincheira and it is expected that charges will soon be brought against the other officials); and (4) the adoption of instructions which reiterate the prohibition to authorize installations including canvas signs, notices and banners in the premises under the administration of the Directorate, such as airports, aerodromes or other premises which have not been authorized.
2. 352. The Committee notes that the Government reports with regard to the allegations relating to the procedure on trade union leave that the DGAC states the following:(i) the directors of the ANFDGAC enjoy trade union immunity, protection against dismissal and the right to trade union leave as provided in Act No. 19296, as well as the prerogative to be exempt from undergoing an annual appraisal; (ii) the rules governing the leave of union officials of the association of officials are set forth in articles 31 and 32 of Act No. 19296; and (iii) the DGAC has fully complied with the rules on officials’ leave, adhering strictly to the law, granting the 51 elected directors the leave they are legally entitled to and refraining from assigning duties to those officials and there has not been on the part of the DGAC any anti-union practice or acts of retaliation. For its part, the Government states that: (1) the DGAC established an internal procedure to record the leave of the directors of DGAC associations of officials, as provided in Act No. 19296 on Workers Associations in the State Administration, also known as PRO.DRH No. 23; (2) the above regulation ensures strict adherence to the principle of freedom of association in the context of trade union officials’ leave since, rather than restricting trade union rights in any way, the DGAC authority, in issuing an internal instruction, did no more than specify the minimum of hours stipulated in Act No. 19296, from 11 to 22 hours (periods exceeding this minimum of hours may be authorized or granted by the authority, in strict compliance with the managerial obligation that falls upon the authorities); (3) the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic issued opinion No. 75117 of 14 December 2010, through which a legal analysis of the internal procedure (PRO.DRH No. 23) was made, concluding that it is in accordance with current domestic and international legislation; and (4) the ANFDGAC, unsatisfied with this ruling, asked for the decision to be reconsidered, arguing that the procedure known as PRO.DRH No. 23 was unlawful. As a result, the Office of the Comptroller supplemented its prior ruling with opinion No. 43894 of 12 July 2011, reiterating its previous conclusions, i.e. that the procedure contested is lawful.
3. 353. The Committee recalls that Paragraph 10(3) of the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation, 1971 (No. 143), states that: “Reasonable limits may be set on the amount of time off which is granted to workers’ representatives.” The Committee observes that PRO.DRH No. 23 (a copy of which has been sent by the complainant) provides for trade union leave to regional directors (11 hours per week) and national directors (22 hours per week), that leave may be accumulated over the month, that leave may be transferred to other officials and that during the leave period the officials remain entitled to remuneration and other allowances provided under the law. The Committee also notes that the Comptroller General of the Republic, on request by the complainant organization, ruled that “the proceeding instituted by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, relating to the recording of leave of the directors of the associations of officials of this organization are in line with the standards and case law in force on the matter”. Consequently, in the light of this information, the Committee concludes that the procedure contesting PRO.DRH No. 23 does not in itself present problems of compliance with the principles of freedom of association.
4. 354. Moreover, as to the alleged institution of administrative proceedings against ANFDGAC officials, which, according to the complainant, is in violation of the freedom of association since it disrupts and denies the legitimate exercise of trade union leave, the Committee notes that the Government reports the following: (1) the Internal Audit Unit undertook as part of its duties internal monitoring, which led to the discovery that there were officials in Concepción and Punta Arenas aerodromes who were failing to work the statutory monthly working hours, and in particular that there was inadequate monitoring of the attendance and leave of at least three officials. Moreover, of the two administrative procedures referred to by the complainant, one was still under consideration and the other acquitted the officials involved, as it was verified that, despite the fact that they had been repeatedly absent from duty, exceeding leave hour entitlement, the investigation revealed that there were reasons exempting the staff concerned from administrative responsibility, thus concluding the disciplinary process; (2) an appeal was lodged with the higher hierarchical authority and subsequently a claim was filed with the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, to obtain an opinion on the legality of the procedure adopted by the Directorate General to record the directors’ leave, claiming that the regulation amounted to an anti-union practice and violated national and international rules governing the issue; and (3) the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic concluded that the internal procedure PRO.DRH No. 23 is in accordance with current domestic and international legislation, and that the national directorate can ask trade union officials to record any absences due to performing the tasks required of them in that capacity, i.e. there may be monitoring in place to prevent directors from using the allowance for purposes other than for those legally granted. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the decision regarding the pending appeal and expects that the competent authorities will take into account the provisions of Article 6 of Convention No. 151.
5. 355. Lastly, as regards the allegation that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation adopted instructions interfering with trade union activity which ban the posting of canvas signs, notices, banners or other similar signs in units under DGAC management such as airports, aerodromes and other facilities, without prior authorization, the Committee observes that the Government has not sent its observations in this regard. The Committee recalls that Paragraph 15(1) and (2) of the Workers’ Representatives Recommendation No. 143 states that workers’ representatives acting on behalf of a trade union should be authorized to post trade union notices on the premises of the undertaking in a place or places agreed on with the management and to which the workers have easy access, and that management should permit workers’ representatives acting on behalf of a trade union to distribute news sheets, pamphlets, publications and other documents of the union among the workers of the undertaking. Also, Paragraph 15(3) states that the notices and documents referred to in this paragraph should relate to normal trade union activities and their posting and distribution should not prejudice the orderly operation and tidiness of the undertaking. The Committee expects that the Government will take the necessary steps to bring closer together the authorities of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and ANFDGAC officials, so that, drawing on the provisions of Recommendation No. 143 with regard to the distribution of trade union notices on the premises, an agreement can be reached on the matter.