Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 384, Marzo 2018

Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body

1. 16. The Committee last examined this case at its October 2016 meeting and on that occasion made the following recommendations [see 380th Report, para. 444]:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government, should the definitive acquittal of Ms Samayoa be confirmed, to provide information on reimbursement of the deduction corresponding to the period she spent in preventive custody.
   • (b) As regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination against Ms Samayoa, the Committee requests the Government to carry out an investigation to examine the allegations, inviting the complainant to provide the Government with any details and evidence at its disposal. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
   • (c) As regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination against Ms Navarrete de Cantón, the Committee invites the complainant organization to provide the Government with any details and evidence at its disposal to enable the Government to conduct an investigation, failing which the Committee will not pursue its examination of this allegation.
   • (d) The Committee invites the Government to promote social dialogue between the complainant organization and the health service authorities concerned, with a view to addressing the question of trade union leave and promoting harmonious collective relations.
2. 17. In its communication dated 6 March 2017, the Government indicates that on 13 May 2016, the Suchitoto Court of First Instance dismissed the proceedings against Ms Samayoa. As regards the deduction corresponding to the period she spent in preventive custody, the Government indicates that before it can assess any potential reimbursement, Ms Samayoa must submit a written request for reimbursement along with the respective judicial decision dismissing the proceedings against her. The Government indicates that although Ms Samayoa did not submit a written request, she was reimbursed the equivalent of one day, five hours and 14 minutes of the four days on which her pay was allegedly deducted, having provided supporting evidence according to the institution’s internal administrative mechanisms.
3. 18. As regards the Committee’s request to carry out an investigation to examine the allegations of anti-union discrimination against Ms Samayoa, the Government indicates that although its domestic legislation prohibits labour-related investigations at public institutions, on 3 November 2016 an inspection was carried out in exercise of the powers granted to the General Directorate for Labour Inspection under the Workplace Risk Prevention Act. The Government indicates that the inspection report states that infractions relating to occupational safety and health were observed and that a follow-up inspection report dated 3 March 2017 shows that those infractions had been rectified.
4. 19. As regards the action taken by the Government to promote social dialogue between the complainant organization and the health service authorities concerned with a view to addressing the question of trade union leave and promoting harmonious collective relations, the Government indicates that the hospital director had not granted trade union leave because the documentation confirming the composition of the executive committees and the respective identity cards had not been submitted to the hospital. The Government indicates that the hospital director did not know why this documentation had not been submitted to the hospital, and that once the corresponding documentation had been received, trade union leave would be granted. The Government also referred to a set of measures adopted in 2015 to strengthen spaces for dialogue, conciliation, consultation and the resolution of labour issues.
5. 20. The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in relation to Ms Samayoa and observes that, although the proceedings against her were dismissed, of the four days she spent in preventive custody, she was reimbursed the equivalent of one day, five hours and 14 minutes, having provided supporting evidence according to the institution’s internal administrative mechanisms. In that respect, the Committee expects that, according to the Government’s indication, if Ms Samayoa were to provide supporting evidence according to the hospital’s internal administrative mechanisms (a written request with a copy of the decision dismissing the proceedings against her), she would be reimbursed in full for the deduction corresponding to the period she spent in preventive custody.
6. 21. As regards the Committee’s request that an investigation be carried out to examine the allegations of anti-union discrimination against Ms Samayoa, the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely indicates that its domestic legislation prohibits labour related investigations at public institutions and refers only to an inspection relating to occupational safety and health. The Committee recalls that where cases of alleged antiunion discrimination are involved, the competent authorities dealing with labour issues should begin an inquiry immediately and take suitable measures to remedy any effects of anti-union discrimination brought to their attention [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 835]. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant organization has not provided the Government with information to facilitate the investigation. In these circumstances, the Committee trusts that the complainant organization will provide the Government with the necessary information so that, in case there are pending issues in this regard, the Government will carry out the corresponding investigation.
7. 22. The Committee also recalls that it had invited the complainant organization to provide the Government with details and evidence to facilitate the investigation in relation to the allegations of anti-union discrimination against Ms Navarrete de Cantón and that, failing this, the Committee would not pursue its examination of these allegations. Given that the Government does not mention in its communications whether it has received these details from the complainant and since the complainant has not submitted any details for the Committee’s attention, these allegations will not be examined further.
8. 23. Finally, as regards the measures to promote social dialogue with a view to addressing the question of trade union leave and promoting harmonious collective relations, the Committee notes that the Government: (i) indicates that trade union leave had not been granted because the corresponding documentation confirming the role of the trade union officials had not been submitted to the hospital and that, once this documentation was submitted, the corresponding trade union leave would be granted; and (ii) cites a set of measures adopted in 2015 to strengthen spaces for dialogue, conciliation, consultation and the resolution of labour issues. Although it observes that most of these measures had been adopted before the complaint was presented, the Committee trusts that these measures have helped strengthen harmonious labour relations and that the Government will continue to promote social dialogue between the complainant and the health service authorities concerned.