Interim Report - Report No 376, October 2015

1. 425. The Committee examined the case at its meeting in October 2014 and presented, on that occasion, an interim report to the Governing Body [see 373rd Report, paras 283–293, approved by the Governing Body at its 322nd Session (October –November 2014)].
2. 426. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 28 May 2015.
3. 427. 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 428. At its October 2014 meeting, the Committee made the following recommendations on the matters still pending [see 373rd Report, para. 293].
   • (a) As the versions of the complainant organization and the Government relating to the alleged detention of two trade unionists are contradictory, the Committee invites the complainant union to provide additional information.
   • (b) The Committee requests the complainant organization to provide additional information to the Government and the Committee, and to indicate whether it has lodged a criminal complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor in respect of the alleged threats made by road transport workers to kill three trade unionists, who were denied police protection, and to indicate the full names of the trade unionists in question (only the name of Mr Jorge Augusto Hernández Velásquez was mentioned in the allegations). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on these allegations and, if the allegations are confirmed, to provide protection to the trade unionists in question.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed about the result of the arbitration procedures initiated by the Civil Service Tribunal regarding collective bargaining between the complainant trade union and the Ministry of Finance.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 429. In its communication of 28 May 2015 the Government provides information on the collective bargaining process which was initiated in November 2010. With regard to the outcome of the arbitration process mandated by the Civil Service Tribunal on collective bargaining between the complainant trade union and the Ministry of Finance, the Government states that through a Tribunal resolution of 1 December 2011, the clauses agreed at the arbitration were added to the clauses which the parties had already agreed upon in the earlier stages of the collective bargaining, and that these clauses together constituted the arbitration decision. In this way, the collective labour agreement between SITRAMHA and the Ministry of Finance for the period 2012–14 was drawn up. On 8 December 2011 the Civil Service Tribunal, through a resolution, authorized the certification of this final document, so that the collective labour agreement could be registered with the Ministry of Labour. On 21 December 2011 the General Secretary of SITRAMHA submitted the copies of the arbitration decision for registration and through a Ministry of Labour resolution of 22 December 2011 the decision was registered as a collective labour agreement with a term of three years, expiring on 21 December 2014.
2. 430. The Government also indicates that SITRAMHA has initiated a new collective bargaining process with a view to promoting the revision of the collective labour agreement for the period 2015–17, and that discussions are at the direct negotiation stage.
3. 431. With regard to the allegations of death threats made to three trade unionists by transport workers and the police’s refusal to provide protection, the Government requests the Committee to reiterate to the complainant trade union that it must give the full names of the trade unionists who allege that they were being threatened. It recalls that without this information it cannot conduct a thorough search of the registers of the National Civil Police, which it must do in order to be able to respond comprehensively to the allegations of denial of police protection.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 432. The Committee duly notes that the collective bargaining process that was initiated in November 2010 concluded in December 2012 with the registration of a new collective bargaining agreement for the period 2012–14, which incorporated clauses agreed upon by the parties in the direct negotiation and conciliation stages and other clauses that were agreed at the arbitration stage. The Committee also notes that a new collective bargaining process initiated by the complainant trade union, with a view to promoting the revision of the collective labour agreement for the period 2015–17, is currently under way.
2. 433. As regards the alleged detention of two trade union leaders the Committee recalls that, on the one hand, the complainant alleged that the leaders were handcuffed and detained temporarily in police custody without being informed of the charges against them; and on the other hand, that the Government responded that the alleged arrest and detention never happened and that the police had provided protection to these individuals when a mob of transport workers attempted to assault them [see 370th Report, para. 405, and 373rd Report, para. 287]. Presented with these contradictory versions of events at its previous examination of the case, the Committee requested the complainant trade union to provide additional information. The Committee regrets not having received any such information and, given the time that has elapsed without any attempt by the complainant trade union to supply more details, it will not pursue an investigation of these allegations.
3. 434. With regard to the allegation of death threats made to three trade unionists the Committee regrets that the Government has not provided the full information that was requested, stating that it needs the names of the three trade unionists while disregarding the fact that the complainant trade union provided the name of one of them (Mr Jorge Augusto Hernández Velásquez) in its communication of 23 May 2012, which was reproduced in the Committee’s previous reports related to this case [see 370th Report, para. 406, and 373rd Report, para. 293]. The Committee firmly expects that the Government will follow up, with the complainant trade union, the allegation of death threats made against Mr Jorge Augusto Hernández Velásquez. The Committee also notes with regret that the complainant trade union has not provided the requested information relating to the identities of the two other trade unionists concerned. The Committee again requests the complainant trade union to furnish the Government with the full names of the other trade unionists mentioned in its complaint so that the Government can pursue the matter and inform the Committee of the outcome.