Informe provisional - Informe núm. 325, Junio 2001

1. 561. The complaint in this case is contained in the communication from the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU) of June 2000. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 28 September 2000.
2. 562. Uruguay 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 complainant’s allegations

1. 563. In its communication of June 2000, the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU) alleges that members of the provisional trade union committee of workers of the Savings and Loans Cooperative of Officials of the Armed Forces (CAOFA) were dismissed for having attempted to form an enterprise union, affiliated to the AEBU. The AEBU states that an enterprise union previously existed called the Association of CAOFA Officials (AFUCA), which had signed a collective labour agreement with the enterprise that is still in force, which the enterprise maintains that it has denounced. According to the complainant, in January 1999, the leaders of AFUCA, Nelson Corbo and Eduardo Cevallos, along with other workers, proposed that this trade union become a member of the AEBU. When the enterprise became aware of the intentions of its unionized workers, it refused to recognize the enterprise union and the collective labour agreement in force. Furthermore, in a memo issued to staff dated 21 December 1999, the enterprise denounced the agreement and took over the payment of contributions being deducted from various workers to pay off loans made against salaries granted by the Banking Retirement and Pension Fund.
2. 564. The complainant states that for the above reasons, and since CAOFA workers were already affiliated to the AEBU, it requested a meeting with the management of the enterprise, but the latter did not permit its workers to attend, claiming that it did not recognize their membership of the banking union. Faced with this situation, the AEBU appealed to the National Directorate of Labour (DINATRA) to summon the enterprise in order to deal with issues that could not be discussed owing to its refusal to recognize that its workers were members of the AEBU delegation, and to address this latter issue, which undoubtedly entailed acts of anti-union discrimination.
3. 565. The AEBU alleges that on 20 January 2000, only two days before the meeting with the AEBU delegation, Mr. Nelson Corbo, head of the AEBU provisional committee at CAOFA, was dismissed in another obvious act of anti-union discrimination. On 24 January 2000, a hearing was held at the National Directorate of Labour; however the enterprise did not attend. On 26 January 2000, a new hearing was held at DINATRA and was attended by the enterprise, which denied that Mr. Nelson Corbo had been dismissed on trade union grounds, alleging that the AEBU had at no time communicated a list of CAOFA workers affiliated to the banking union. This hearing was attended by the AEBU delegation, CAOFA workers affiliated to the AEBU, namely Nelson Corbo (dismissed days earlier), Eduardo Cevallos, Gonzalo Ribas, Andrea Oyharbide, Gerardo Olivieri and Marcelo Almada. This hearing took place at around midday and later that afternoon all members of the AEBU delegation employed at CAOFA were dismissed.
4. 566. The complainant adds that the enterprise subsequently threatened all workers that anyone who confirmed in writing their intention to remain affiliated to the AEBU, in order to have union contributions deducted from their salaries, would be dismissed just like the other workers who had been members of the provisional committee. According to the AEBU, this pressure was successful, given that only three workers confirmed their affiliation to the AEBU: Sandra Suarez, Carina Sanzone and Virginia Orrego. With regard to Ms. Virginia Orrego, it should be noted that on 21 February 2000 she was transferred from the board secretariat to a position involving serving the public, and was forced to take her regulatory annual leave, which she is currently doing.
5. 567. Finally, the complainant states that the enterprise cannot claim that the dismissals were due to redundancies or service requirements, given that the dismissed workers were subsequently replaced with newly employed staff.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 568. In its communication of 28 September 2000, the Government states that upon the request of AEBU members, the Collective Bargaining Department of the National Directorate of Labour summoned CAOFA to a hearing on 24 January 2000 to resolve three difficult situations, which are clearly described in the official record produced by the abovementioned department. By virtue of the content of this official record, the aim of the meeting was to bring the parties together to resolve the following issues: (a) the irregular deductions from the salaries of officials, to make loan payments into the Bank Fund, which were not paid by the enterprise, thus leaving employees behind with their payments; (b) the irregular denouncement of the collective agreement; and (c) the non-payment of the extra bonus established in this agreement. The Government states that it was also informed by the trade union delegation that Mr. Nelson Corbo, who had participated in the trade union negotiations, was dismissed by the enterprise on 20 January 2000, and it was assumed that the same measure would be adopted for Mr. Eduardo Cevallos. The enterprise did not appear at this hearing and a new hearing was called for 26 January 2000.
2. 569. On 26 January 2000, both parties attended and each of the issues which had led to the conflict was assessed. The enterprise acknowledged that it owed the abovementioned items and committed itself to paying them as soon as possible. Similarly, the enterprise maintained that the amounts that had been deducted and not paid into the Bank Fund would be included in a payment agreement to be signed immediately. With respect to Mr. Nelson Corbo, the enterprise alleged that he was dismissed based on his performance (not being efficient in his job) and not on trade union grounds, and refused to recognize that its staff were members of the AEBU. The position adopted by each sector is recorded in the minutes, and the Department of Collective Bargaining of the National Directorate of Labour has not been involved in the conflict since, as its intervention has not been requested.
3. 570. The Government adds that on 10 March 2000, it lodged a complaint against CAOFA before the General Inspectorate of Labour and Social Security on behalf of the AEBU and the provisional trade union committee of CAOFA, for alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, which initiated the administrative proceedings aimed at determining whether or not the conduct of the enterprise constituted a violation. To date, a final resolution has not been adopted on the denounced acts and evidence is still being processed. According to the Government, the abovementioned administrative proceedings have followed the due procedure, in that, notwithstanding the evidence officially gathered through procedural investigations, the parties involved have also had the possibility of submitting evidence and sustaining their case. Finally, the Government indicates that once proceedings are finalized, it will communicate the results and the adopted measures to the Committee.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 571. The Committee observes that in this case the complainant alleges that once the Savings and Loans Cooperative for Officials of the Armed Forces (CAOFA) became aware of the intentions of union leaders of the cooperative to become affiliated to the Association of Bank Employees of Uruguay (AEBU), CAOFA refused to recognize the enterprise union, denounced the collective agreement that was in force, dismissed six workers affiliated to the AEBU (Nelson Corbo, on 20 January 2000, and Eduardo Cevallos, Gonzalo Ribas, Andrea Oyharbide, Gerardo Olivieri and Marcelo Almada on 26 January 2000), transferred another worker (Virginia Orrego), and, finally, threatened workers that anyone who confirmed in writing their intention to remain affiliated to the AEBU would be dismissed just like the other workers who had been members of the AEBU provisional committee.
2. 572. With regard to these allegations, the Committee takes note that the Government states that: (i) the National Directorate of Labour summoned the parties to a hearing on 24 January 2000 to bring the parties together and resolve issues relating to irregular deductions from the salaries of officials to make loan payments into the Bank Fund, the irregular denouncement of the collective agreement, the non-payment of the extra bonus established in this agreement, and the dismissal of Mr. Nelson Corbo, who had participated in trade union negotiations; (ii) since the enterprise did not appear at the hearing on 24 January 2000, another hearing was called for 26 January 2000 during which the enterprise acknowledged that it owed the abovementioned items and committed itself to paying them as soon as possible, and stated that Mr. Nelson Corbo had been dismissed for not being efficient in his job and not on trade union grounds; (iii) the Department of Collective Bargaining of the National Directorate of Labour has not been involved in the conflict since, as its intervention has not been requested; and (iv) on 10 March 2000, the AEBU lodged a complaint against CAOFA before the General Inspectorate of Labour and Social Security for alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, which initiated an administrative investigation which is at the stage of processing evidence.
3. 573. In this respect, the Committee regrets that the Government has not communicated its observations on the dismissal of several workers affiliated to the AEBU and the transfer of another worker, as well as on the threats of dismissal made to any workers who affiliated themselves with the AEBU. The Committee notes with concern that according to the complainant, Eduardo Cevallos, Gonzalo Ribas, Andrea Oyharbide, Gerardo Olivieri and Marcelo Almada were dismissed on the same day (26 January 2000) they attended the hearing representing the AEBU trade union organization alongside the enterprise in order to discuss various difficult issues, and that Ms. Virginia Orrego was transferred after having informed the enterprise that she wanted trade union contributions to be deducted from her salary and paid to the AEBU. The Committee recalls that “No person shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, whether past or present” and that “Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination should cover not only hiring and dismissal, but also any discriminatory measures during employment, in particular transfers, downgrading and other acts that are prejudicial to the worker” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, paras. 690 and 695].
4. 574. In these circumstances, noting that the Government states that an administrative investigation is under way initiated following a complaint lodged by the AEBU against CAOFA for anti-union acts, the Committee requests the Government to: (1) take measures so that this investigation, started more than one year ago, is quickly concluded; (2) ensure that the investigation covers all the allegations made by the complainant in this case; and (3) take measures, if during this investigation the allegations are found to be true, so that: (i) workers dismissed on trade union grounds or transferred are reinstated immediately in their jobs, with the payment of back wages; and (ii) in the future, the respect of established collective agreements is fully guaranteed at CAOFA as well as that of legal provisions against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to transmit information on the results of the investigation and any measures adopted.