Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 350, Junio 2008

1. 316. The Committee examined this case at its November 2006 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 343rd Report, paras 364–374, approved by the Governing Body at its 297th Session (November 2006)].
2. 317. The Government sent new observations in communications dated 26 February and 30 April 2008.
3. 318. Chile 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 319. In its previous examination of the case in November 2006, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 343rd Report, para. 374]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to send the texts of any rulings that have been or may be pronounced in relation to the actions concerning anti-union practices brought against the Television Corporation of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the actions brought by the enterprise with the aim of challenging the administrative fines imposed for infringements of labour legislation and simulation (of labour contracts through third parties, in this case external enterprises).

B. The Government’s reply

1. 320. In its communication dated 26 February 2008, the Government reiterates the statements made in earlier communications which were considered by the Committee in its previous examination of the case. The Government also indicates its wish to provide an update of the information supplied to the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning the status of the cases involving anti-union and other practices brought against the Television Corporation of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile:
   • – Case No. 3546-2004 before the Fourth Labour Court of Santiago: as indicated in the information previously sent to the Committee, the complaint concerning anti-union practices filed by the Labour Directorate was dismissed by the court and the case has now been shelved.
   • – Case No. 2561-2004 before the Fourth Labour Court of Santiago: the complaint concerning anti-union practices filed by the Labour Directorate was dismissed by the court and the first-instance ruling was upheld by the Appeals Court of Santiago. The case has now been shelved.
   • – Case No. 1677-2005 before the Third Labour Court of Santiago: as regards the complaint concerning anti-union practice, the latest event in the proceedings is the agreement dated 22 October 2007.
   • – Case No. 3716-2004 before the Third Labour Court of Santiago: the enterprise’s complaint against the fine imposed by the Labour Directorate was upheld by the court (fine No. 13.12.7409.04.055).
   • – Case No. 3717-2004 before the Third Labour Court of Santiago: the enterprise’s complaint against the fine imposed by the Labour Directorate was upheld by the court (fine No. 13.12.7409.04.056).
   • – Case No. 3718-2004 before the Third Labour Court of Santiago: the enterprise’s complaint against the fine imposed by the Labour Directorate was upheld by the court (fine No. 13.12.7409.04.057).
   • – Case No. 4392-2003 before the Third Labour Court of Santiago: complaint against the fine imposed by the Labour Directorate (fine No. 13.12.6203.03.088-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). On 5 December 2005, the court issued a ruling rejecting the enterprise’s complaint. The defendant appealed against the ruling, but this was declared inadmissible by the Appeals Court of Santiago on 20 September 2006. On 5 October 2006, the court ordered the enforcement of the ruling.
   • – Case No. 3855-2003 before the Sixth Labour Court of Santiago: the court ruled against the Labour Directorate, while partially upholding the complaint filed by the enterprise which had been fined. On 13 March 2007, the court ordered the enforcement of the ruling.
2. 321. In a communication of 30 April 2008, the Government sends the decisions concerning this case.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 322. The Committee recalls that in this case the complainant organization alleged the replacement of workers involved in a legal strike in 2004 at the Television Corporation of the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile; the use of labour-sourcing companies and false contracts for provision of services instead of employment contracts, leading to a fall in union membership, for anti-union purposes; mass dismissals since 2001 and other anti-union practices; discrimination against the general secretary of the union by assigning certain operations for which he had been responsible to a contracting enterprise; pressure from the corporation for workers to abandon collective bargaining, along with economic incentives for those who were not part of the bargaining group prejudicial to those who were members; failure to comply with the provisions of the collective agreement; the dismissal of three union members; impossibility for the union to recruit members contracted through external enterprises; and the signing by workers of individual contracts imposed by the corporation which exclude them from collective bargaining.
2. 323. The Committee notes the Government’s statements to the effect that, in one of the legal actions concerning anti-union practices, the complainant trade union submitted an agreement which took effect on 22 October 2007; another case concerning anti-union practices presented by the Labour Directorate of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare was dismissed by the judicial authority either at first instance or on appeal (the case is currently shelved): another case concerning anti-union practices brought by the Labour Directorate was also dismissed by the court of first instance (the case is currently shelved). The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the judicial authority upheld three complaints brought by the enterprise against fines imposed by the Labour Directorate. A fourth complaint filed by the enterprise on which the fine had been imposed was partially upheld by the court. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s statement with regard to another case that the first-instance judicial authority upheld the fine imposed by the Labour Directorate, with the appeals court declaring the Corporation’s appeal inadmissible.
3. 324. The Committee notes that all the legal actions have concluded, and that the Government has sent the rulings (which are favourable to the Corporation except in one case) issued in relation to the matters raised in the present case.