Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 355, Novembre 2009

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

1. 34. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2009 meeting [see 353rd Report, paras 69–77]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government to keep it informed on the matter of the dismissal of Luis Alberto Acevedo, Orlando Martínez Cuervo and William de Jesús Puerta Cano, trade union officials of the Colombian Union of Beverage Industry Workers (SINALTRAINBEC), Itagüí section, who, according to the allegations, were dismissed by the enterprise CERVECERIA UNION SA with the aim of destroying the trade union organization.
2. 35. In a communication of 22 May 2009, SINALTRAINBEC comments on the Committee’s previous conclusions and affirms once again the anti-union nature of the alleged events.
3. 36. In a communication dated 27 April 2009, the Government states that with regard to the dismissal of Luis Alberto Ruiz Acevedo, the Labour Chamber of the High Court of Medellín revoked the ruling of the first instance court and ordered the worker’s reinstatement. As a result of this, the enterprise CERVECERIA UNION SA reinstated Mr Ruiz Acevedo as of 17 July 2006, paying his wages and statutory and non-statutory benefits as ordered by the said ruling. The Government adds that, according to information provided by the enterprise, Mr Ruiz Acevedo voluntarily resigned from his post and that the employment relationship was terminated by mutual consent on 23 February 2008. The parties ratified this decision by signing a conciliation agreement on 28 February 2008 before the Antoquia Territorial Directorate of the Ministry of Social Protection. As to the dismissal of Orlando Martínez Cuervo, the Government states that, according to the information provided by CERVECERIA UNION SA, the judicial order reinstating the worker was executed as of 15 March 2005 and his wages and statutory and non-statutory benefits were paid as ordered by the ruling issued by the First Labour Judge of Itagüí. As regards the situation of Mr Puerta Cano, the Government states that, in accordance with the special trade immunity procedure, a ruling was issued in the first instance ordering his reinstatement. That ruling was revoked in the second instance, thus releasing the enterprise from its obligation to reinstate Mr Puerta Cano. Mr Puerta Cano then lodged an amparo (protection of constitutional rights) action with the aim of quashing the ruling in the second instance, but to no avail.
4. 37. The Committee takes note of this information.