Interim Report - Report No 370, October 2013

1. 401. The complaint in the present case is contained in a communication from the Union of Workers of the Ministry of Finance (SITRAMHA) dated 23 May 2012.
2. 402. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee was obliged to postpone its examination of the case. At its May–June 2013 meeting [see 368th Report, para. 5], the Committee made an urgent appeal to the Government indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the requested information or observations had not been received in time. To date, the Government has not sent any information.
3. 403. El Salvador has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135), and the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 404. In a communication dated 23 May 2012, the SITRAMHA explains that, on 18 November 2010, it presented a list of demands to the Civil Service Tribunal, and that the delay in the commencement of bargaining gave rise to a collective labour dispute. The direct negotiation phase of the dispute began on 2 February and ended in April 2011; in the conciliation phase, which began on 15 June 2011 and ended on 26 July 2011, only 22 of the 128 clauses in the draft collective agreement were approved. The complainant adds that members at an extraordinary general meeting held on 25 July 2011 agreed to take direct action in the form of a nationwide work stoppage (to obtain a financial bonus, payment of incapacity benefit, etc. through bargaining). On 12 August 2011, the Civil Service Tribunal issued an order initiating arbitration procedures. However, the complainant states that the arbitration was also delayed as a result of the resignation on 27 September 2011 of the arbitrators appointed by the Ministry of Finance, one hour before they were due to be sworn in. The work stoppage agreed on at the 25 July 2011 extraordinary general meeting went ahead on 28, 29 and 30 November 2011.
2. 405. The complainant alleges that, on 30 November 2011, the National Civil Police arrested the General Secretary, Ms Krissia Meny Guadalupe Flores, and the Secretary for Women’s Issues, Ms Odilia Dolores Marroquín Cornejo. Both officers of the complainant organization were in the El Amatillo customs offices, where they were handcuffed and taken into police custody at different times, without being informed of the charges against them. The complainant adds that in the case of Ms Krissia Meny Guadalupe Flores, the intimidation was of a sexual nature, since she was taken in a patrol car with eight male police officers via back roads, without knowing where they were going.
3. 406. The complainant also alleges that the National Civil Police denied police protection to three trade union members, including the National and International Relations Secretary, Mr Jorge Augusto Hernández Velásquez, who had been threatened by international road transport workers with being burned alive.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 407. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint was presented, the Government has not responded to the complainant’s allegations, although it has been invited on several occasions, including by means of an urgent appeal, to send its observations or information on this case. The Committee urges the Government to be more cooperative in the future.
2. 408. Under these circumstances, and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (1971)], the Committee is obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without being able to take account of the information which it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 409. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to ensure respect for employers’ and workers’ freedom of association rights in law and in practice. The Committee is confident that, while this procedure protects governments against unreasonable accusations, they must recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations brought against them [see First Report of the Committee, para. 31].
4. 410. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of excessive delay in the collective bargaining process initiated in November 2010, of measures taken by the authorities after a work stoppage from 28 to 30 November 2011 (when the arbitrators appointed by the authorities in the lengthy collective bargaining process resigned); according to the allegations, these measures consist of: (a) the arrest of two union officers (Ms Krissia Meny Guadalupe Flores and Ms Odilia Dolores Marroquín Cornejo) without being informed of the charges against them; the General Secretary, Ms Krissia Meny Guadalupe Flores, also suffered intimidation of a sexual nature; (b) refusal to provide protection to two union members and one union officer who had received death threats from road transport workers.
5. 411. The Committee requests the Government to provide as a matter of urgency full information on all of the allegations, including the two union officers’ arrest and detention, their current situation and the police’s alleged failure to take action on death threats which three union members received from transport workers, as well as on the administrative or judicial proceedings initiated in this regard. The Committee recalls that the detention of trade union leaders or members for trade union activities or membership is contrary to the principles of freedom of association. It further recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 61 and 44]. With regard to the allegation that there are no provisions in law granting public servants in the customs service the right to strike, the Committee draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Lastly, the Committee requests the complainant and the Government to send information about the current status of the collective bargaining process.