Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO399, June 2022

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

1. 22. The Committee examined this case, concerning allegations of anti-union suspensions at the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Housing (SOPTRAVI) and the seizure of union documentation, at its meeting in March 2015 [see 374th Report, paras 424–435]. On that occasion, the Committee made the following recommendations:
   • (a) As regards the allegations concerning the suspension of the employment contracts of some 2,000 workers at the Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Services (INSEP), (formerly SOPTRAVI), the Committee requests the Government to respect, in the future, the principle of consultation of trade union organizations on matters that affect the interests of their members and to consult them, in particular with regard to the consequences of programmes for the restructuring of employment or the rationalization of conditions of work of salaried employees.
   • (b) As regards the allegations of an attempt by police and military personnel to break into the head office of the Independent Workers’ Federation of Honduras (FITH), the Committee highlights the vagueness and lack of precision of the allegations and therefore invites the complainant organization to send more detailed information, in particular concerning the attempt by police and military personnel to break into the FITH head office in order to seize all the documentation belonging to the union.
2. 23. The Government submitted further information in a communication dated 30 April 2015. With regard to recommendation (a), the Government: (i) emphasized that the suspension of the workers’ contracts was temporary and necessary given that the INSEP had an obligation to ensure the proper distribution and implementation of its expenditures; and (ii) stated that the INSEP maintains ongoing communication with trade union organizations on matters that affect the interests of their members, including with regard to the consequences of restructuring programmes on employment or rationalization programmes on the working conditions of employees.
3. 24. With regard to recommendation (b), the Government: (i) stated that anti-union persecution is not a state policy and therefore it does not know about the allegations of an attempt by police and military personnel to break into the complainant organization’s head office; and (ii) like the Committee, highlighted the vagueness and lack of precision of the allegations and invited the complainant organization to provide more detailed information in this regard.
4. 25. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. Moreover, it observes that the complainant organization has not provided the more detailed information on the allegations of a break-in at its head office that it had requested. In these circumstances, and given that it has received no information either from the Government or from the complainant organization since 2015, the Committee considers this case closed and will not pursue its examination.