Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO395, June 2021

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

1. 30. The Committee last examined this case, referring to alleged anti-union dismissals (including the dismissal of trade union leaders) and anti-union persecution in the private security sector, at its March 2019 meeting. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 388th Report, paragraph 310]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to provide information on developments in the cases that are pending (judicial proceedings relating to the dismissal of trade union leaders) and also those on which information is not available, and expects that those cases will be addressed in the near future, in accordance with the Committee’s decisions in the above conclusions.
   • (b) With regard to the alleged anti-union dismissals of the members of the executive committee of the Union of Workers of the G Four Group (SINTRAGFOUR) and 150 of its members, which is alleged to have taken place following its establishment, the Committee requests the Government to conduct a comprehensive investigation with respect to those dismissals and to keep it informed of the outcomes.
   • (c) The Committee requests the complainants to provide further information on the alleged anti-union dismissal of 150 members of SINTRAGFOUR.
2. 31. In a communication dated 24 March 2020, the Government forwarded the information provided by the National Directorate of Labour Inspection (DNI), which is the administrative authority responsible for monitoring compliance with trade union rights. That body states that:
   • (i) as indicated previously, in 2014 a complaint was processed for alleged persecution and unfair labour practices by the enterprise, which had been lodged by the National Federation of Industrial Workers (FENATI), to which the complainant organization, the Trade Union of Workers of the G Four Group (SINTRAGFOUR), is affiliated; and, in February 2015, the representative of FENATI withdrew the complaint and stated his intention to have recourse to the courts, which is why the process was not pursued;
   • (ii) it has no knowledge of other cases brought against the enterprise in respect of the subject matter of this complaint;
   • (iii) it has no further information on developments in the cases, as the only case processed has already been concluded; and
   • (iv) for the above reasons, it is not possible to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the dismissal of 150 workers; there is absolutely no information that would allow them to be identified and their location is unknown.
3. 32. Regarding recommendation (a), the Committee notes that, while the Government indicates that there are no cases pending at the administrative level, it does not provide any information regarding developments in the cases pending before the courts. The Committee recalls in this respect that the pending judicial proceedings were as follows: (i) judicial proceedings relating to three trade union leaders (Mr Rigoberto Cruz Vásquez, Mr José Andrés Chevez Luna and Mr Wagner Cubillo Palacios) who had obtained a favourable judgment in the first instance, which was appealed by the enterprise, with that appeal still pending before the courts; and (ii) judicial proceedings relating to three trade union leaders (Ms Graciela Reyes Umaña, Mr Vladimir Torres Montiel and Mr Carlos José Padilla Aviles), about whom there was no concrete information. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on developments in the cases that are pending before the courts and expects them to be addressed in the near future.
4. 33. Regarding recommendations (b) and (c), on the one hand the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is not possible to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the alleged anti union dismissal of the members of the executive committee of SINTRAGFOUR and of 150 of its members given that there are no cases pending at the administrative level and that it has absolutely no information that would allow the 150 workers in question to be identified. On the other hand, the Committee observes that, despite the fact that it requested the complainant organizations (SINTRAGFOUR and the Costa Rican Confederation of Democratic Workers) to provide information on the alleged anti-union dismissal of 150 members of SINTRAGFOUR, to date the complainant organizations have not provided that information. In these circumstances, the Committee will not pursue its examination of these allegations.