Interim Report - Report No 371, March 2014

1. 655. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Trade Union of Workers and Employees of Prosegur Paraguay, SA (SITEPROPASA) and UNI Global Union dated 31 October 2012.
2. 656. At its October 2013 meeting, 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 at its 184th Session (November 1971), it could present a report on the substance of the case, even if the requested information or observations from the Government had not been received in time. In a communication dated 12 March 2014, the Government informs that it will provide documents and reports related to the case.
3. 657. Paraguay has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 658. In their communication of 31 October 2012, SITEPROPASA and UNI Global Union report that, on 25 September 2011, a meeting of the constituent assembly of the trade union was called, at which the procedures for registering the trade union with the administrative labour authority were initiated. On 26 September, the trade union was registered in accordance with Resolution No. 62/2011 of the Office of the Deputy Minister for Labour of Paraguay. The enterprise Paraguay, SA was informed of this by telegram. The complainants allege that once the enterprise had been informed of the establishment of the trade union, it dismissed the following workers, who it identified as promoters and organizers within the trade union: Mr Víctor Fretes, Mr Pío Antonio Hermoza, Mr Carlos Denis and Mr Esteban González, the press and public relations secretary. The complainants state that it was not possible to bring a case before the courts requesting their reinstatement, as they did not possess reliable documentation to corroborate their status as union organizers.
2. 659. The complainants add that, on 23 December 2011, the trade union informed the employer of its intention to promote the negotiation of a collective agreement on working conditions and submitted a draft that had been approved by the assembly of the trade union. According to the complainants, the enterprise employed delaying tactics and the trade union turned to the administrative authority, requesting it to mediate. They state that, on 2 May 2012, representatives of the enterprise and the trade union signed an initial agreement establishing a period of two months at the end of which both parties would sign the collective agreement on working conditions, once the negotiations were complete. The complainant organizations allege that, once the period of two months had elapsed, the agreement was never signed owing to the enterprise’s unwillingness to continue with the negotiations.
3. 660. The complainants allege that, during the negotiating process, the following trade union members were dismissed: Mr Antonio Robledo, Mr Hermenegildo Areco, Mr Víctor Martínez, Mr Heriberto Ortiz and Mr Alfredo Ramírez. The complainants state that, in this context, the workers who were members of SITEPROPASA, satisfying all the legal requirements, decided to hold an eight-day strike from 18 to 26 July 2012 (the strike was extended to 4 August 2012). The complainants allege that the enterprise carried out acts of persecution and intimidation against the workers from the beginning of the strike. In particular, they state that several trade union leaders and members received telephone calls at home from employees of the enterprise, who informed their families that any worker who participated in the strike would be dismissed and would no longer be able to support their family. Furthermore, they allege that law enforcement officers were present at the picket line and marches, in order to intimidate the strikers.
4. 661. The complainants add that the enterprise recruited new workers during the strike, which was confirmed by the administrative labour authority. They indicate that, during the strike, a tripartite meeting was held at the Ministry of Labour, which was attended by the Minister for Labour herself and at which the workers were requested and advised to end their protest action. According to the complainants, the highest authorities of the Ministry undertook to continue mediating between the parties and to guarantee that the workers would not suffer reprisals. However, the complainants allege that from that moment the authorities abandoned the workers who were members of the trade union to their fate. The complainants state that the workers decided to end the strike on 27 July 2012 and that, when they returned to work on 30 July, they were summoned individually by the enterprise and, in the absence of an adviser or legal representative, were informed of the enterprise’s intention to have the strike declared unlawful (the enterprise submitted a request to the Fourth Circuit Labour Court of First Instance of the city of Asunción to that end), which would result in them being dismissed without pay. The complainants add that, in this context, the workers were pressured into signing an agreement that would terminate their employment contracts and which established the compensation to be paid, the notice period and other particulars, as if it were an unjustified dismissal or a justified withdrawal from service. The complainants allege that, in this way, the enterprise succeeded in dismissing 230 trade union members, and that those workers who had refused to sign the letters terminating their employment relationship were dismissed. The complainants state that it is worth noting that the enterprise subsequently withdrew on 20 August 2012 its request to have the strike declared unlawful. According to the complainants, a number of trade union leaders accepted compensation as “an agreement to terminate their employment relationship by mutual consent”, which many only accepted after having been subjected to undue pressure. The complainants also allege that, when those dismissed workers seek employment in other enterprises in the sector, to their surprise, and despite meeting all the necessary criteria, they are informed that they cannot be hired because Prosegur Paraguay, SA has published a list containing the names of the striking workers.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 662. The Committee regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the case, the Government has not provided the information requested, despite having been invited to do so by means of three urgent appeals (the last one having been made at its October 2013 meeting).
2. 663. Under these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information that it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 664. The Committee recalls 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 promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning allegations made against them.
4. 665. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the complainant organizations allege that the enterprise Prosegur Paraguay, SA: (1) dismissed four founding members of the trade union when the enterprise was informed of its establishment; (2) refused to comply with the initial agreement for negotiating a collective agreement on working conditions; (3) dismissed five trade union members during the negotiation process; (4) replaced striking workers and carried out acts of intimidation against them (the complainants allege that the workers received telephone calls at home informing their families that they would lose their jobs for participating in the strike, and that law enforcement officers were present at the picket line and marches carried out by the strikers); (5) it succeeded in dismissing 230 trade union members (who accepted compensation) who had participated in the strike, after having informed them that the strike would be declared unlawful and that they would be dismissed without pay; and (6) it submitted a list containing the names of the striking workers to other enterprises in the sector, thereby preventing them from gaining employment.
5. 666. In this respect, the Committee regrets that the Government has not sent its observations on these serious allegations of anti-union discrimination and urges it to send them without delay, after obtaining the observations of the enterprise concerned. The Committee wishes to recall that, in general, “no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment”, and that “all practices involving the blacklisting of trade union officials or members constitute a serious threat to the free exercise of trade union rights and, in general, governments should take stringent measures to combat such practices” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 771 and 803].
6. 667. In the light of the above principles, the Committee requests the Government to take urgent steps to ensure that an investigation is conducted without delay into all the allegations made in this case and, if these are found to be true, that the necessary remedial measures are taken. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
7. 668. Furthermore, recalling that “measures should be taken to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements” [see Digest, op. cit., para. 880], the Committee requests the Government to do everything in its power to promote collective bargaining between the parties. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.