Interim Report - REPORT_NO378, June 2016

1. 357. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2015 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 374th Report, paras 372 to 423].
2. 358. One of the complainant organizations, the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH), submitted additional information in a communication dated 12 June 2015.
3. 359. The Government submitted its observations in communications dated 29 and 30 April and 19 October 2015.
4. 360. Honduras has ratified 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. 361. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 374th Report, para. 423]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide information in their possession on the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez and in particular whether it was due, as the Government states, to a car accident and whether anyone has been charged or detained in this regard.
   • (b) As regards the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, and their subsequent detention, when they were participating in a peaceful demonstration, the Committee urges the Government to inform it without delay on the specific acts for which they are being prosecuted, on the status of the legal proceedings instituted and, where applicable, the outcome.
   • (c) Concerning the dispute which is the subject of this complaint, the Committee notes the allegations relating to the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, under section 3 of Decree-Law No. 224-2010, of 28 October 2010, and to the failure to pay salary increases, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to seek a negotiated solution acceptable to all the parties concerned, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association laid down in the ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee expects that the parties will take full account of the principles referred to in its conclusions in the future and requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the salary negotiations provided for in Decree-Law No. 224-2010, of 28 October 2010.
   • (d) As for the allegation regarding the suspension of the deduction of union dues for teachers’ organizations, the Committee emphasizes that the suspension of the deduction of union dues infringes union rights; it therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps, if it has not done so already, to ensure that all teachers’ organizations once again benefit from the check-off facility for the union dues of their members.
   • (e) As for the declaration of illegality made by the State Secretariat of the Labour and Social Security Departments, which led to the adoption of Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012, of 18 October 2012, and the subsequent imposition of sanctions involving salary deductions, temporary suspension or dismissal, as the case may be, affecting hundreds of teachers, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant organizations to seek a negotiated solution acceptable to all the parties concerned, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association laid down in the ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining; it also requests the Government to take steps to amend the legislation so that the legality or illegality of the strike is declared by an independent body.
   • (f) Concerning the allegations referring to the sending of inspectors to each lawfully convened assembly, by the State Secretariat of the Education Department, the Committee emphasizes that the presence of representatives of the authorities or the employer at union assemblies constitutes interference in violation of the principles of freedom of association laid down in ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. It requests the Government to ensure that such practices do not recur in the future.
   • (g) As for the refusal of union leave requested by numerous officials, under circular letter No. 0019-SE-2013, of 7 February 2013, the Committee requests the Government to resume dialogue with the complainant organizations in order to find a prompt solution to this situation, and to inform it of the outcome of any legal proceedings instituted.
   • (h) The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s reply is not sufficiently clear as regards the allegations pertaining to: (1) the exclusion of teachers’ organizations from the higher authority of the administration of INPREMA; and (2) the suppression of the protests resulting from the failure to pay salary increases from 2010 to 2013. The Committee firmly urges the Government to send its observations in this regard without delay, in particular information concerning the complaints submitted to the competent authorities by the persons who have been victims of police repression during the protests.
   • (i) Moreover, the Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide more detailed information on the allegations concerning: (1) the unilateral suspension of the teacher selection and competitive recruitment boards; (2) the request for a report on the amounts, use and handling of the funds obtained as a result of the deductions transferred to teachers’ organizations; (3) the institution of civil liability proceedings against four Trade Union of Honduran Teachers (SINPRODOH) officials, for an amount of HNL49,070,777.49; and (4) the alleged professional persecution with no further details against two members of the Association of Secondary Teachers of Honduras (COPEMH). The Committee requests the complainant organizations to furnish all information available to them in relation to these allegations, so that the Government may provide a precise response.
   • (j) The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the communication dated 23 January 2015 from the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH) and other national organizations concerning allegations of sanctions against education trade unionists and other restrictions on trade union rights in relation to the dispute at hand.

B. Additional information and new allegations from a complainant organization

1. 362. In a communication of 12 June 2015, one of the complainant organizations, the CUTH provided additional information on some of the Committee’s recommendations from its previous examination of the case (recommendations (a) to (e), (g) and (i)); it also presented fresh allegations concerning restrictions on the right of assembly, certain amendments to teachers’ working conditions, and the criminalization of teachers.
2. 363. With respect to the Committee’s recommendation (a), the complainant explains that during a teachers’ demonstration, Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez suffered a blow to the head which caused her to lose her balance and fall to the ground prior to the collision [in a context of police repression]; according to the autopsy report, the cause of death was a cerebral oedema, which the complainant organization attributes to the blow she suffered prior to the collision. The complainant adds that the authorities have not yet provided any information about any arrest or prosecution.
3. 364. As to recommendation (b), the complainant organization reports that the 24 accused teachers remain in detention, that the legal proceedings have suffered delays which have postponed the hearings arbitrarily, and that the teachers were anxious at the prospect of being convicted.
4. 365. Concerning recommendation (c), the complainant indicates that there has not been any communication from the Government with a view to initiating the salary negotiations provided for in Decree-Law No. 224-2010 of 28 October 2010; there has been no salary increase since 2006.
5. 366. Regarding recommendation (d), the complainant organization states that the Government is still not deducting union dues, which has been the case since February 2013; consequently, no transfers have been made to the teachers’ organizations. Furthermore, it notes that the Act on the National Social Welfare Institute for Teachers (INPREMA), as amended by Decree-Law No. 267-2013 of 22 January 2014, contains arbitrary provisions on union dues, imposing a limit on the number of members per organization and a contribution rate of 49.32 Honduran lempiras (HNL).
6. 367. As to recommendation (e), the complainant organization indicates that there are new cases of teachers who were sanctioned for attending meetings held by teachers’ organizations.
7. 368. With respect to recommendation (g), the complainant organization alleges that union leave requested by numerous officials is still being denied.
8. 369. Regarding recommendation (h)(1), the complainant organization reports that the Government administers the INPREMA unilaterally, and alleges that the teachers’ organizations participate merely as members of the assembly of participants.
9. 370. As to recommendation (i)(1), the complainant organization explains that, by communication of 11 September 2013, the State Secretariat of the Department of Education sought to authorize the members of the teacher selection boards in only five of the country’s 18 departments.
10. 371. Furthermore, the complainant organization alleges that the right of assembly of teachers’ organizations is being restricted and that teachers’ representatives are still being victimized and harassed, as they are prohibited from convening meetings outside of working hours and are being denied leave to attend meetings. The complainant also presents a series of allegations concerning changes to working conditions.

C. The Government’s reply

1. 372. In communications dated 29 and 30 April and 19 October 2015, the Government conveyed the following information.
2. 373. With regard to recommendation (a) from the Committee’s previous examination of the case, the Government reiterates that the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez was caused by a vehicle collision, and appends forensic report No. A-600-11 of the Department of Forensic Medicine. Furthermore, it indicates that a driver, Mr Carlos Eduardo Zelaya Ríos, has been charged with culpable homicide and the case is pending a final judgment from the trial court.
3. 374. With regard to recommendation (b), the Government indicates that the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association when they participated in a demonstration have not yet concluded.
4. 375. As to recommendation (c), the Government informs the Committee that Decree-Law No. 18-2010 of 28 March 2010, containing the Act on Fiscal and Financial Emergencies has been extended repeatedly, and consequently the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute remains suspended. The Government explains that the policy on salary increases has been progressive, subject to the economic circumstances of the State; that being the case, the last salary increment for teachers was approved in July 2012.
5. 376. Concerning recommendation (d), the Government indicates that the suspension of the deduction of union dues for teachers’ organizations was temporary, owing to the change in the internal payment system in the human resources department of the State Secretariat of the Department of Education. It explains that the purpose of Decree-Law No. 267-2013 of 22 January 2014, which contains the reforms to the Act on the National Pension Institute for Teachers (INPREMA), is not to deny the right to membership of a teachers’ organization, but to protect the teachers’ investments; nor does it prohibit the granting of pension benefits by teachers’ organizations. The Government adds that teachers’ participation in pension savings accounts is voluntary.
6. 377. With reference to recommendation (e), the Government indicates that the legal provisions governing the employment relationship between the State and the national public education system do not include a means of declaring a collective work stoppage illegal, and that that is the responsibility of the State Secretariat of the Departments of Labour and Social Security as the competent authority. The Government refutes the statement of the CUTH and indicates that no teachers have been sanctioned merely for having attended meetings held by teachers’ associations. It explains that the sanctions imposed pursuant to the decision in question concern only those teachers who had left schools in 2012.
7. 378. Concerning recommendation (f), the Government indicates that the allegations referring to the State Secretariat of the Department of Education sending inspectors to each lawfully convened assembly have not been proven. It adds that the teachers’ meetings are held in public places and hence any interested party may attend.
8. 379. As to recommendation (g), the Government indicates that during the period of 2011 to 2015, it continued to grant leave for trade union affairs whenever the applicants were entitled to it. It adds that more than 50 teachers’ representatives currently enjoy paid union leave.
9. 380. As to recommendation (h)(1), the Government explains that the board of specialists is the higher level authority of INPREMA for administration and implementation, which is the executive and participatory body of the assembly of participants and contributing members. It adds that the teachers’ organizations are part of the assembly of participants and contributing members, with influence over the institute’s strategic policy. The Government indicates that membership of both organs is incompatible with the law.
10. 381. Concerning the unilateral suspension of teacher selection boards and competitive recruitment examinations (recommendation (i)(1)), the Government indicates that the boards have been established and explains that the legislation does not exclude teachers’ organizations from participating.
11. 382. With regard to recommendation (j) from the previous examination of the case, the Government provides the following information:
    • – Concerning the sanctions placed on the five teaching union officials from the department of Cortés – Ms Reina Isabel Discua, Mr José Antonio Carvallo, Mr José Antonio Alas, Mr Wilson Mejía Fiallos and Mr Reynaldo Inestrosa – it indicates that the administrative proceedings are ongoing. To date, no sanctions have been placed on the aforementioned teachers, who are not teaching union officials, and there is no evidence that they are entitled to union leave. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the Education Directorate of the department of Cortés on the grounds of alleged failure to perform their duties (of the directorate and subdirectorate of schools) and of resisting orders issued by the competent authority.
    • – As to the suspension of the deputy director of the Instituto Central Vicente Cáceres, Mr Valentín Canales Bustillo, the Government explains that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated because he had not taken over the leadership of the institute as required by law. Mr Canales Bustillo was reinstated after complying with the sanction that had been imposed.
    • – Concerning the publication in the Official Journal of 21 regulations of the Basic Law on Education, the Government recalls that under that law, the secretariat of the Department of Education shall issue the corresponding regulations. The regulations in question do not diminish or restrict the rights recognized in the Constitution; furthermore, they were adopted after a process of consultation with various sectors of the teaching profession, parents and civil society.
    • – With regard to the official communication sent by the National Commission of Banks and Securities in November 2014 mandating the transfer of the union dues accrued by each trade union organization to INPREMA, where teachers had opted for a pension savings account, the Government informs the Committee that the pension savings account is a personalized account which enhances the financial gains of the participants when they retire, and that teachers’ participation is voluntary.
12. 383. With reference to the allegations of restrictions on the right of assembly of teachers’ organizations, continued victimization and harassment of teachers’ representatives, prohibition on holding meetings outside of working hours and refusal of leave to attend meetings, the Government categorically rejects the allegations; it clarifies that the intended use of school facilities is for children, and that no applications for teacher training days had been received.
13. 384. As to the allegations of changes to working conditions, the Government explains that there have been no such changes; the legislation in force was merely being applied. As to entry into the teaching profession, it states that the new arrangements are on the basis of a competitive examination.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 385. The Committee recalls that, in the present case, the complaints form part of a long dispute between teachers’ organizations and the Government, which gave rise to protests and strikes during the period from 2010 to 2013, caused by the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute and the delays in the payment of salaries in arrears, among other factors. Further, the Committee recalls that the allegations still pending in this case relate to: (1) the death of a trade unionist on 18 March 2011, while she was participating in a peaceful demonstration; (2) the legal proceedings instituted against 24 teachers for the crimes of sedition and unlawful association, and their arrest while participating in a peaceful demonstration; (3) the exclusion of teachers’ organizations from the higher level authority of the administration of the INPREMA; (4) the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute, and its de-indexation from the minimum salary (preventing the continuing use of the minimum salary as a reference for the automatic and direct increase of salaries); (5) the failure to pay salary increments from 2010 to 2013 and the suppression of the protests to which this gave rise; (6) the declaration of the protests as illegal by the administrative authority and the resulting sanctions imposed on more than 600 teachers; (7) the suspension of the deductions of union fees for teachers’ organizations; (8) the adoption of Decision No. 15096-SE-2012 of 30 July 2012, which provides for the extension of the school year in the case of stoppages or suspensions of classes; (9) the refusal of requests for renewal of union leave; (10) the unilateral suspension of teacher selection boards and competitive examinations; (11) the request for a report on the amounts, use and handling of the funds obtained as a result of the deductions transferred to teachers’ organizations; (12) the civil liability claims brought against four SINPRODOH officials, for an amount of HNL49,070,777.49; (13) the workplace harassment of two members of the COPEMH; and (14) the sanctions against trade unionists in the teaching profession and other restrictions on trade union rights.
2. 386. With regard to recommendation (a), the Committee observes that both the complainant organization and the Government concur that the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez was caused by a cerebral oedema. However, the Committee notes a contradiction in the account of the circumstances leading to her death: the complainant organization alleges that prior to the collision, the victim suffered a blow to the head which caused her to lose her balance and fall onto the roadway, in a context of political repression, and attributes the cerebral oedema to the blow to the head; whereas the Government denies that there was any political repression and attributes the cerebral oedema solely to the collision. The Committee notes that according to the information provided by the Government, a driver has been charged with culpable homicide and a final judgment is pending. The Committee recalls that “[t]he killing, disappearance or serious injury of trade union leaders and trade unionists requires the institution of independent judicial inquiries in order to shed full light, at the earliest date, on the facts and the circumstances in which such actions occurred and in this way, to the extent possible, determine where responsibilities lie, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of similar events” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 48]. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the legal proceedings.
3. 387. Concerning recommendation (b), the Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the complainant organization, the teachers remain in detention and the legal proceedings have suffered delays; the Government has not denied the situation and only indicates that the proceedings have not concluded. The Committee recalls that “justice delayed is justice denied” [see Digest, op. cit., para. 105]. Observing with concern that the imprisonment of 24 teachers took place in 2011 and that the Government still does not provide information on the specific acts imputed to them, the Committee emphasizes that prolonged detention of persons awaiting trial involves a risk of abuse. Thus, the Committee expects that all necessary measures are taken so that the ongoing legal proceedings can be concluded without further delay and that measures for conditional release are provided if the judicial decisions are not taken in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
4. 388. As to recommendation (c), the Committee notes the complainant organization’s statement that there has not been any communication from the Government, and the Government’s explanation of the extension of the suspension of the economic regime set forth in the Honduran Teachers’ Statute and the need to adapt to the economic circumstances of the State. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government and the complainant organizations to seek a negotiated solution acceptable to all the parties concerned, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association laid down in the ratified Conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining. Furthermore, it requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of any relevant negotiations entered into.
5. 389. Concerning recommendation (d), the Committee notes the divergence between the allegations of a continued suspension of the deduction of union dues and the Government’s response that the suspension was temporary. In this connection, the Committee observes that the Government submits documentary evidence, signed by the deputy director of human resources for teaching of the State Secretariat of the Department of Education, indicating that teachers’ payroll deductions corresponding to their union contributions to the respective teachers’ organizations were functioning normally. Taking account of this documentary evidence, while expressing regret for any suspension that occurred and trusting that the deductions will be made as normal, the Committee, not having received any additional information from the complainant organizations in this regard, will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
6. 390. Furthermore, concerning the allegations that the Act on the National Social Welfare Institute for Teachers (INPREMA), as amended by Decree-Law No. 267-2013 of 22 January 2014, contains arbitrary provisions on union dues, the Committee observes that, under article 4 of that decree, “the State Secretariat of the Department of Education, the State Secretariat of the Department of Finance and private schools shall be prohibited from making any type of deductions payable to teachers’ organizations that deviate from or are in excess of those established in the preceding article. The State Secretariat of the Department of Education shall so inform the relevant authorities and the private schools, where applicable, in order that the automatic deductions be cancelled for the duration of any such irregularity for those teachers’ organizations not complying with the provisions of the preceding article”. The Committee recalls that “a legal restriction on the amount which a federation may receive from the unions affiliated to it would appear to be contrary to the generally accepted principle that workers’ organizations shall have the right to organize their administration and activities and those of the federations which they form” [see Digest, op. cit., para. 483]. The Committee requests the Government to submit its observations on this matter without delay, in particular as to the scope of article 4 of Decree-Law No. 267-2013 of 22 January 2014, to clarify how trade unions’ right to organize their administration is safeguarded.
7. 391. Furthermore, regarding the allegations concerning the official communication sent by the National Commission of Banks and Securities in November 2014 mandating the transfer of the union dues accrued by each trade union organization to INPREMA, where teachers had opted for a pension savings account, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the pension savings account is voluntary and requests the complainant organization to provide more detailed information, including a copy of the official communication to which it refers.
8. 392. With regard to recommendation (e), the Committee notes the Government’s explanations as to the limited scope of sanctions under Executive Decision No. 15575-SE-2012 of 18 October 2012; the declaration of illegality of a collective work stoppage; and the jurisdiction of the State Secretariat of the Departments of Labour and Social Security in that regard. The Committee recalls that responsibility for declaring a strike illegal should not lie with the Government, but with an independent and impartial body. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to amend the legislation such that the legality or illegality of a strike is declared by an independent body.
9. 393. With respect to recommendation (f), the Committee notes that the Government is of the opinion that the allegations have not been proven by the complainant organizations, and that any interested party may attend the meetings in question as they are held in public places. While recalling that where a representative of the public authorities can attend trade union meetings, this may influence the deliberations and the decisions taken (especially if this representative is entitled to participate in the proceedings) and hence may constitute an act of interference incompatible with the principle of freedom to hold trade union meetings [see Digest, op. cit., para. 132], the Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that such practices do not recur in the future.
10. 394. Concerning recommendation (g), the Committee notes the statement of the Government maintaining that, between 2011 and 2015, union leave continued to be granted for trade union affairs whenever the applicants were entitled to it. Therefore, unless the complainant organizations provide additional information in this regard, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
11. 395. As to recommendation (h), the Committee notes the Government’s explanation concerning the inclusion of teachers’ organizations in the assembly of participants and contributing members, one of the management and administrative bodies of INPREMA. Therefore, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
12. 396. The Committee notes that the Government makes no reference to the complaints made by victims of repression during the protests against the failure to pay salary increments from 2010 to 2013. The Committee once again urges the Government to submit its observations without delay, in particular providing information on the complaints submitted to the competent authorities by the persons who suffered police repression during the protests.
13. 397. With reference to recommendation (i), the Committee recalls that it requested the complainant organizations to provide more detailed information on the allegations concerning: (1) the unilateral suspension of the teacher selection boards and competitive examinations; (2) the request for a report on the amounts, use and handling of the funds obtained as a result of the deductions transferred to teachers’ organizations; (3) the institution of civil liability proceedings against four officials of the SINPRODOH, for an amount of HNL49,070,777.49; and (4) the allegations, without further details, of workplace harassment of two members of the COPEMH (recommendation (i)) so that the Government may accurately respond to them. In the absence of comprehensive information requested from the complainants, and noting the information from the Government indicating that the boards have been established and explaining that the legislation does not exclude the participation of trade union organizations, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.
14. 398. With regard to recommendation (j), the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning: (1) the five teachers from the department of Cortés subject to disciplinary proceedings for alleged failure to perform their duties and resisting orders issued by the competent authority, where the Government clarifies that the persons concerned are not officials of teaching unions, that they do not appear to be entitled to union leave and that no sanctions have been placed on them; (2) the reinstatement of the deputy director of the Instituto General Vicente Cáceres, after he complied with the sanction that had been imposed; (3) the adoption and publication of 21 regulations of the Basic Law on Education, in accordance with the relevant law, through a process of consultation with various sectors. In such circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.
15. 399. As to the fresh allegations of restrictions on the right of assembly of teachers’ organizations, continued victimization and harassment of teachers’ representatives, prohibition on holding meetings outside of working hours and refusal of leave to attend meetings, the Committee requests the complainant organizations to provide more detailed information.