Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 302, Mars 1996

1. 282. The complaint was lodged in communications from the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) dated 25 July and 16 August 1995. The Government replied in a communication dated 11 December 1995.
2. 283. Guatemala has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainant's allegations

1. 284. In its communications dated 25 July and 16 August 1995 the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT) alleges the violation of ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 in the Ceylán Estate (Municipality of San Miguel Pochuta, Department of Chimaltenango), of which the Workers' Trade Union of the Ceylán Estate has been the victim.
2. 285. Specifically, the CLAT alleges that on 10 July 1995 Mr. Fidel Suy Morales (a non-unionized worker very much committed to the employer's determination to break up the trade union) attacked the trade union leader Mr. Carlos Cocón Mendoza, a member of the collective bargaining committee and of the executive committee of the Workers' Trade Union of the Ceylán Estate, with a machete, as a result of which Mr. Mendoza was seriously wounded in the neck and obliged to stop work. The next day, 11 July 1995, a representative of the Ceylán Estate personally informed two unionized workers, Mr. Clemente Ajquijay and Mr. Víctor Quilimaco, that they were to go to work a long way away from the other workers, which is something that happens very rarely. Mr. Ajquijay was attacked by masked men armed with machetes and received a blow that resulted in his having to be hospitalized; the men then went looking for Mr. Quilimaco whom they knew was some 200 metres away, but he managed to escape.
3. 286. The complainant claims that the instigator of this attack was the owner of the Estate, and states that the events took place only a few hours after two labour inspectors had visited the Estate to hold a conciliation meeting on unpaid wages (three two-week periods) and new working conditions, on which agreement had been reached. According to the complainant, the owner had previously attempted to block the negotiation of the collective agreement by means of intimidation and anti-union repression aimed at forcing the workers to take the money due to them and leave their jobs, which 21 workers did.

B. The Government's reply

1. 287. In its communication of 11 December 1995 the Government states that the Labour Inspectorate has intervened in the dispute at the Ceylán Estate over the unpaid wages and the change in working arrangements. Following the Labour Inspectorate's intervention on 14 July 1995, the parties agreed in a document drawn up by he labour authorities to reduce the workload and to pay the wages that had been withheld.
2. 288. The Government adds that, on 10 August 1995, a complaint was lodged with the Labour Inspectorate alleging that unionized workers were being threatened with reprisals and that two workers, Mr. Carlos Cocón and Mr. Ajquijay Riquiac, had been attacked by masked machete-carrying men and wounded. The Labour Inspectorate held a number of meetings with the union leaders and representatives of the enterprise.
3. 289. The Government states that on 26 October 1995, from a perusal of worker/employer documents, the administrative authorities established that the workers were indeed signing receipts for wages that they were not receiving, while the payroll showed those wages as having been paid. Subsequently, in a document drawn up by the labour authorities, the parties to the dispute agreed (a) to end the enterprise's arrangement for signing a receipt for wages; (b) with regard to changes in the work schedule, that the legal advisor of the General Labour Inspectorate would determine the correct procedure for working on Saturdays; (c) on the rotation of staff for the various duties performed on the Estate; (d) as from 2 November 1995, to resume direct negotiations on the collective agreement on working conditions. The competent authorities thus took the necessary steps to resolve the labour dispute.
4. 290. Regarding the injuries sustained by some union leaders, the employer, on being questioned by the Labour Inspectorate, stated that he regretted what had happened but that the enterprise had at no time engaged in any kind of reprisals against its employees and could therefore not be held responsible. Some rank-and-file members of the organization had indeed resigned from their jobs, and the enterprise was obliged to pay the money owing to them in accordance with the law after having submitted their resignation to the competent judicial authority for its authorization.
5. 291. The Government adds that the Ministry of Justice stated in October 1995 that the judicial proceedings brought before the Justice of the Peace of San Miguel Pochuta, in the Department of Chimaltenango (injuries sustained by Mr. Cocón), do not contain any charges against a Mr. Suy Morales; as to the other case brought before the Justice of the Peace of the Municipality of San Miguel Pochuta, the Public Prosecutor states that the following steps have been taken: (a) the national police headquarters of the region has been requested to investigate the case; (b) Mr. Clemente Ajquijay Quilimaco and a witness have been called in to make a declaration. The Office of the Public Prosecutor is continuing its investigation in order to determine responsibilities for the crimes committed.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 292. The Committee observes that in the present case the complainant organization alleges that an official and a member of the Workers' Trade Union of the Ceylán Estate have been attacked and injured (and claims that the owner of the Estate is the instigator of these acts), that the owner has attempted to block the negotiation of a collective agreement and to intimidate workers so as to make them resign from their jobs (a total of 21 workers have resigned), and that there have been various infringements of labour legislation (non-payment of wages, etc.).
2. 293. As to the injuries sustained by trade unionists Mr. Carlos Cocón and Mr. Clemente Ajquijay, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the Office of the Public Prosecutor is continuing its inquiries in order to determine who perpetrated these crimes and that the enterprise denies any responsibility. Particularly noting that breaches of labour law were verified by labour inspectors at the Ceylán Estate, the Committee deeply regrets these injuries, expects that those responsible will be duly punished and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the investigation. The Committee emphasizes that trade union rights cannot be exercised in a climate of violence or threats.
3. 294. Regarding the employer's alleged attempt to block collective bargaining and infringements of labour legislation (non-payment of wages, etc.), the Committee notes that, following the intervention of the Labour Inspectorate, the parties reached an agreement in which they undertook to respect labour legislation and to resume negotiation of the collective agreement.
4. 295. Regarding the resignation of 21 workers allegedly as a result of intimidation by the employer, the Committee notes the Government's statement that the enterprise denies that there have been any reprisals but confirms that some members of the trade union have indeed resigned from their jobs and that the enterprise has paid them their entitlements under the law. The Committee would draw attention to the fact that the resignations concerned took place during a collective dispute and in the context of negotiations over a list of labour demands that included the payment of unpaid wages (three two-week periods). The Committee therefore cannot but conclude that the resignations handed in by union members occurred in a context of intimidation, especially considering that the enterprise was not paying their wages but was prepared to pay the entitlements corresponding to the termination of their employment relationship. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that an inquiry is conducted in order to determine whether there were acts of intimidation or anti-union discrimination which forced workers to resign from their jobs at the Ceylán Estate and, if so, the Government should take the appropriate measures to facilitate the reinstatement in their jobs of the workers in question if they so wish. The Government is requested to keep the Committee informed in this regard.