Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - REPORT_NO403, June 2023

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

1. 23. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns a series of alleged anti-union acts carried out by a public banking entity to undermine and destabilize the Banco Popular workers’ trade union (SIBANPO, the complainant organization) and its leaders, at its meeting in June 2011 (see paragraphs 496 to 554). On that occasion, the Committee:
   • (a) suggested to the trade union and the Bank to consider the possibility of setting up a joint commission within the framework of the collective agreement for the periodic verification of the legality of the activities financed by the funds whose management the collective agreement entrusts to the trade union. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any decision in this respect;
   • (b) suggested that cases of disputes concerning the trade union leave provided for in the collective agreement be submitted to the above-mentioned joint committee, possibly chaired by an independent person, in order to guarantee the right of the trade union to ensure that the trade union leave provided for in the collective agreement is applied in practice without prejudicing the effective functioning of the Bank. The Committee requested the Government to keep it informed of any decision in this respect;
   • (c) requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the administrative proceedings against the dispute secretary of the complainant union; and
   • (d) expressed the hope that efforts would be made by the Bank and the union to improve the industrial relations climate and that the suggested dispute resolution mechanisms would be put in place in the very near future.
2. 24. In a communication dated 30 August 2012, the complainant organization indicates that the Bank’s General Management unilaterally decided on the salary adjustment without prior negotiation with SIBANPO. In this regard, in a communication dated 5 March 2013, the Government indicates that the obligation to negotiate salaries should only be complied with when the increase proposed by the Bank itself was lower than the Consumer Price Index, because what the clause in the agreement actually includes as a benefit for the workers is that the salary adjustments should be compensated according to the increase in the cost of living, reflected in that index. The Government also indicates that the trade union did not participate in an administrative conciliation process initiated by the Bank in November 2012 and points out that the Bank asked the labour administration for an interpretation of the above-mentioned clause and that it was awaiting that opinion.
3. 25. By communications sent on 8 February 2012, 10 January and 22 August 2014, as well as 28 September and 27 October 2022, the Government provides the following information in respect of the above-mentioned recommendations:
4. 26. In a communication dated 28 September 2022, the Government indicates that labour relations at the Bank are conducted within the framework of respect for freedom of association, collective bargaining and unionization, all in line and harmony with the Bank’s institutional obligations and goals. It also indicates that the parties are currently negotiating a new collective agreement; that all legal proceedings related to this case have been resolved, all decisions being favourable to the Bank; and that there are no administrative proceedings related to this case pending before the National Inspection Directorate. The Government also emphasizes that a significant period of time has elapsed without any update from the complainant organization.
5. 27. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government. The Committee recalls that the issues giving rise to the complaint occurred more than a decade ago and notes that, according to the Government’s information, SIBANPO and the Bank have negotiated various collective agreements to date. The Committee also notes that, according to the documents annexed by the Government, the collective agreement between SIBANPO and the Bank in force in 2014 provided for a mechanism called the “Labour Relations Board”, which is a permanent bipartite and joint body. The Committee further notes that, in the collective agreement signed in 2017 between SIBANPO and the Bank, available on the website of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, it is stated that the “Labour Relations Board” is a permanent body with joint representation whose purpose is to resolve labour-management and legal disputes arising from the application of the law or the collective agreement, as well as complaints of union persecution brought by SIBANPO or any worker. On the basis of the foregoing, having received no recent information from the complainant organization and noting that, according to the Government, the parties are negotiating a new collective agreement, the Committee considers that the case is closed and will not pursue its examination.