Informe en el que el Comité pide que se le mantenga informado de la evolución de la situación - Informe núm. 384, Marzo 2018

1. 548. The Committee last examined this case at its October–November 2015 meeting, where it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 376th Report, paras 1009–1038, approved by the Governing Body at its 325th Session (November 2015)].
2. 549. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 2 September 2016.
3. 550. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 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. 551. At its meeting in October–November 2015, the Committee made the following interim recommendations on the allegations presented by the complainant organizations [see 376th Report, para. 1038]:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to promote collective bargaining without delay in the enterprise CEMEX de Venezuela CA.
   • (b) The Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure the implementation of the wage clauses of the collective agreement in the enterprise Venezolana de Cementos SACA.
   • (c) The Committee invites the complainants to indicate whether, after the strike referred to in the allegations, agreements were signed regarding the violations of the collective agreement in the enterprise CA Vencemos.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to ensure full compliance with the collective agreements in the public enterprises in the cement sector.
   • (e) As regards the union member Mr Manuel Rodriguez (whose wages were allegedly cut in violation of the collective agreement), the union member Mr Alexander Santos (who, according to the allegations, was subjected to a wage cut and harassment), and the union official Mr Ulice Rodríguez (suspension of wages and benefits, on a decision of the enterprise Venezolana de Cementos SACA and the arbitrary reduction of his wages by 80 per cent in violation of the collective agreement), the Committee regrets that the Government has not informed it of whether the three union members in question did actually file judicial proceedings or of the possible outcomes of any such proceedings. The Committee invites the Government and the complainant organizations to keep it informed in this regard.
   • (f) Observing that the union organization the UNETE submitted allegations and documents in June and July 2014, according to which Mr Orlando Chirinos was dismissed (following further dismissal proceedings) and the dismissal proceedings against Mr Ulice Rodríguez have been maintained in retaliation for the complaints filed with the ILO high-level tripartite mission in January 2014, the Committee requests the Government to provide, as a matter of urgency, additional information on these allegations and on the grounds for dismissal given in the proceedings under examination concerning the union members Mr Ulice Rodríguez, Mr José Vale, Mr Adrián Zerpa and Mr Waldemar Pastor Crawther Sánchez, and to keep it informed of the progress of the different proceedings.
   • (g) The Committee requests the Government to submit these problems to tripartite dialogue with trade union organizations and employers in the cement sector with a view to expediting the identification of effective solutions to the various problems raised in the complaint, and to keep it informed in this regard.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 552. In its communication of 2 September 2016, the Government provides its observations on the Committee’s recommendations.
2. 553. Regarding recommendation (a) (to promote collective bargaining without delay in the enterprise CEMEX de Venezuela CA), the Government informs the Committee that the enterprise changed its name to Venezolana de Cementos SA (hereinafter “cement enterprise No. 1”) and that there are currently 47 collective agreements in the cement industry. The Government requests the Committee to ask the complainants for more information regarding the trade unions and enterprises concerned, while reiterating that the Government promotes and guarantees collective bargaining in the cement industry, as in all other sectors.
3. 554. Regarding recommendation (b) (measures to ensure the implementation of the wage clauses of the collective agreement in the enterprise Venezolana de Cementos SACA (hereinafter “cement enterprise No. 2”), the Government reports that this enterprise informed the Government that it complies with wage clauses and upholds workers’ other labour rights. The Government adds that, should there be a violation of collective agreements, the workers can file a complaint with the labour inspectorates, as provided for in law.
4. 555. Regarding recommendation (d) (to ensure full compliance with the collective agreements in the public enterprises in the cement sector), the Government states that, in general, it guarantees and monitors compliance with collective agreements in the cement industry, as in all other sectors. The Government adds that all workers in the country have the right to collective bargaining and that legislation provides for mechanisms to settle through conciliation any disputes arising in relation to compliance with collective agreements.
5. 556. Regarding recommendation (e) (complaints and judicial proceedings filed by three trade union members), the Government provides the following information:
   • (i) Mr Ulice Rodríguez referred his case to the labour inspectorate, which decided that the issue should be resolved by judicial process. In the course of these proceedings, the worker alleged that the enterprise had failed to make payments correctly on a number of items, estimating the amount owing to be 31,741.40 Venezuelan bolivars (US$3,144 according to the official exchange rate). The Government reports that, on 23 November 2015, the Eighth High Court of the District Labour Tribunal of the Caracas metropolitan area issued a ruling partially in favour of the complainant and ordered the enterprise to pay the outstanding amounts specified in the ruling.
   • (ii) With regard to Mr Alexander Santos, the Trujillo State Inspectorate was responsible for handling the procedure for reinstatement and payment of wages due. In 2009, the Inspectorate, in an administrative decision, ruled in favour of the worker. However, the enterprise failed to comply with the decision. With regard to the judicial proceedings, the Government states that there was no way of verifying whether any legal action had been taken by the worker, and therefore asks the Committee to request more information from the complainants.
   • (iii) With regard to Mr Manuel Rodríguez, no information was received, and the Government therefore requests the Committee to seek more detailed information from the complainants.
6. 557. Regarding recommendation (f) (allegations of anti-union dismissal proceedings), the Government denies that trade unions or workers who have lodged complaints with the ILO have been subject to reprisals or any other measures, and states that it respects the free exercise of democracy and freedom of expression. The Government informs the Committee that: (i) with regard to Mr Orlando Chirinos, a ruling was made in favour of the dismissal proceedings on 20 June 2014, but the worker may appeal against this decision in the courts; (ii) with regard to Mr Pastor Crawther, the charges of misconduct invoked as a reason to authorize his dismissal were declared inadmissible and the dismissal was therefore not authorized; (iii) with regard to Mr Adrián Zerpa, the proceedings were withdrawn by the enterprise, closing the case in question; (iv) with regard to Mr Ulice Rodríguez, the labour inspectorates reported that there were currently no active dismissal proceedings; and (v) with regard to Mr José Vale, following an exhaustive review of inspectorate records, no proceedings against him were found.
7. 558. Regarding recommendation (g) (to submit these problems to tripartite dialogue in the cement sector), the Government indicates that, as is the customary practice in the country, labour inspectorates have set up round tables for bargaining, dialogue and conciliation between trade union organizations and enterprises in the cement industry and other sectors. The Government, for example, refers to a dialogue round table set up in the offices of the Lara State Labour Inspectorate, Pio Tamayo, between cement enterprise No. 2 (Planta Lara) and the Union of Cement Workers in Lara State (SINTRACEL).
8. 559. Lastly, the Government draws attention to the complainants’ failure to provide the information requested on several occasions, as well as the lack of willingness by the complainants to move forward with the complaint, and asks that the case be closed.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 560. The Committee observes that, concerning recommendations (a), (b),( d) and (g) regarding the promotion of collective bargaining, tripartite dialogue and respect for collective agreements in the cement industry, the Government provides general information. In particular, regarding the promotion of collective bargaining without delay in cement enterprise No. 1, the Government reiterates its commitment to collective bargaining and requests more details from the complainants to enable it to reply – without providing further information on any negotiating tables set up and agreements concluded. In addition, regarding the recommendation to take measures to ensure that the clauses of the collective agreements, particularly the wage clauses of the collective agreement with cement enterprise No. 2, are implemented, the Government reports that the enterprise concerned claims that it is complying with wage clauses and upholds other labour rights and recalls that the workers can file complaints about non-compliance with collective agreements. Furthermore, the Committee observes that the complainants have not provided any additional information for more than three years. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to provide more detailed information concerning recommendations (a), (b),(d) and (g) of its previous examination of the case, regarding the promotion of collective bargaining, tripartite dialogue and respect for collective agreements in the cement industry. Furthermore, it invites the Government to address all outstanding matters relating to these issues by setting up a dialogue round table with the interested organizations, and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard, as well as of the number and coverage of agreements concluded in the enterprises concerned.
2. 561. Regarding recommendation (c), the Committee observes that the complainants have failed to provide the information requested of them and, given the time that has elapsed, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this aspect of the case.
3. 562. Regarding recommendation (e), in which the Committee had requested the Government and the complainants to provide information on the complaints and judicial proceedings filed by the three trade union members, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government: a legal ruling partially in favour of Mr Ulice Rodríguez in his complaints relating to incorrect amounts paid by the enterprise; and an administrative decision in favour of Mr Alexander Santos regarding reinstatement and payment of wages due. However, as the enterprise failed to comply with the decision, there is no way of verifying whether any subsequent legal action had been taken, and it has not been possible to obtain any information relating to Mr Manuel Rodríguez. As no additional information has been received from the complainants, the Committee once again invites them to provide any detailed information at their disposal and requests the Government, on the basis of that information, to state whether Mr Alexander Santos and Mr Manuel Rodríguez did actually file judicial proceedings and to provide information on the outcome of such proceedings, and to provide a copy of the court decision ruling partially in favour of Mr Ulice Rodríguez.
4. 563. Regarding recommendation (f) (allegations of anti-union dismissal proceedings), the Committee observes that the Government reports that, in four of the five alleged cases, the dismissal proceedings were unsuccessful or did not take place. With regard to the only case in which dismissal was authorized (Mr Orlando Chirinos), the Committee observes that the application for dismissal was declared admissible, given the prior authorization by the labour inspectorate on the grounds of an allegation (dereliction of duty) that is unchallenged by the complainants. As no additional information has been received from the complainants in this regard, the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.