Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO383, October 2017

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 41. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2015 session [see 376th Report, paras 338–351] and on that occasion: (i) as regards the alleged anti-union practices at the Frito Lay enterprise (hereinafter food company), the Committee urged the complainant and the Government to indicate whether or not administrative or judicial complaints had been filed and, if so, to keep it informed of their outcome; (ii) the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that “self-employed” workers fully enjoy freedom of association rights, and again drew this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations; and (iii) the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed in respect of the allegations concerning flaws and a lack of impartiality in the functioning of the inspection system and recalled to the Government the availability of technical assistance from the ILO.
2. 42. In its communication dated 2 June 2016, the Government submits a communication from the National Confederation of Trade Union Unity (CNUS) indicating that, in the context of the dispute between the food company and the National Union of Workers of Frito Lay Dominicana (Sintralaydo), it has been agreed that a joint committee on collective bargaining over working conditions will be established. Furthermore, according to the Government, the dispute in the Universal Aloe enterprise was submitted to the dispute settlement committee, which was expected to be set up at the end of June 2016.
3. 43. In several communications sent between 11 October 2016 and 17 March 2017, the Government reports that, after it was established that Sintralaydo had the majority needed to engage in collective bargaining, a bargaining process was initiated which concluded on 16 March 2017 with the signature of a collective agreement. The Government further indicates that the disputes between the food company and Sintralaydo are a thing of the past and that the relations between the enterprise and the trade union are very good.
4. 44. The Committee takes note of these various pieces of information. With regard to the food company, the Committee notes that neither the Government nor the complainant have informed it of any administrative or judicial complaints filed in respect of the alleged anti-union acts. The Committee notes with satisfaction that a collective bargaining process took place leading to the signature of a collective agreement between the abovementioned enterprise and Sintralaydo.
5. 45. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on the allegations concerning the flaws and a lack of impartiality in the functioning of the inspection system that might have arisen in various enterprises. The Committee recalls that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 817]. The Committee trusts that the Government will ensure full respect for this principle in the future and recalls to the Government the availability of technical assistance from the ILO in respect of labour inspection.
6. 46. Lastly, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that the dispute in one of the enterprises concerned would be submitted to a dispute settlement committee that is being set up. In the absence of any particular request by the Committee for information with regard to that enterprise, the Committee trusts that the dialogue that takes place before the dispute settlement committee will have a positive impact. In the light of the various points that have previously been examined, the Committee will not continue its examination of this case.