Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 354, Juin 2009

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

1. 51. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2008 meeting [see the 350th Report, paras 55 to 59]. On that occasion, the Committee requested the Government: (1) in relation to the allegations made by the Employees’ Association of the National Penitentiary and Prison Institute (ASEINPEC) respecting the dismissal of Buyucue Penagos, Gutiérrez Rojas, Nieto Rengifo and Amaya Patiño, to inform it of the final outcome of the legal action instituted; and (2) with regard to the allegations made by the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) that the Alcalis de Colombia Ltda. company had not given effect to the settlements reached with the workers who had been dismissed in the context of the company’s liquidation, to conduct an investigation in order to determine whether the workers have indeed been compensated and, if not, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the corresponding compensation is paid without delay to the dismissed workers.
2. 52. In its communications dated 29 and 31 May 2008, ASEINPEC also refers to the refusal by the prison authorities to engage in collective bargaining, the absence of protection for leaders who are subject to death threats (Freddy Antonio Mayorga Melendez, Julio César Walteros García, María Elsa Páez García, José Gerardo Estupiñan and José Fernando Salazar), the refusal to grant trade union leave and the transfer of leaders to other jobs, and the failure of the courts to recognize the trade union immunity of union leaders Buyucue Penagos, Gutiérrez Rojas and Nieto Rengifo.
3. 53. In a communication of September 2008, the Workers’ Union of Puerto Berrio refers to the restructuring process by the Municipality of Puerto Berrio, which was examined earlier in the present case, and indicates that no solution has yet been found concerning the situation of the workers that were dismissed during this process.
4. 54. In communications dated 15 September 2008, 25 February and 17 and 18 March 2009, the Government provides the following information.
5. 55. The action for amparo (protection of constitutional rights) brought by Germán Amaya Patiño in the 22nd Administrative Court of Medellín was rejected on 16 January 2008 and referred to the Constitutional Court for review on 14 May 2008. The legal proceedings instituted by Buyucue Penagos, Nieto Rengifo and Gutiérrez Rojas have been before the Administrative Tribunal of Antioquia, in the first two cases, and the Tribunal of Medellín, in the latter case, since the beginning of 2007. The Committee notes this information and expects that the proceedings will be finalized in the near future.
6. 56. With reference to the allegations concerning the failure to pay compensation to the workers of Alcalis de Colombia Ltda. under the settlements concluded in the context of the process of liquidating the company, the Government recalls that the company was liquidated in 1993 and that the employment contracts were terminated under the terms of a conciliation agreement mediated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security providing for the payment of the corresponding benefits, wages and compensation. The Government attaches the reply provided by the company’s legal representative according to which the enterprise’s debts were taken over by the State in 2000 in relation to the persons covered by the actuarial calculation approved in 1999. All of the workers who were not covered by this calculation and who subsequently won their court cases were confronted by the lack of financial assets of the liquidated company. A solution was found through Decrees Nos 4380 of 2004 and 0637 of March 2007, under which Alcalis settled 188 debts out of a total of 213. The company is currently engaged in settling the remaining debts through the ordinary procedures. The legal representative adds that the workers who made the complaint have the status of pensioners of the company and that the corresponding pensions are being paid to them in accordance with the collective agreement and the respective court rulings. The Committee notes this information and expects that the remaining debts will be settled in the near future.
7. 57. In relation to the new allegations made by ASEINPEC concerning the lack of protection for certain union leaders under the menace of death threats, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information in this respect. The Committee recalls that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of these organizations, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition 2006, para. 44]. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to investigate the reported threats, punish those responsible and provide appropriate protection for the union leaders who are under threat. The Committee will follow up these allegations in the context of Case No. 1787.
8. 58. With reference to the allegations that the prison authorities refuse to engage in collective bargaining, the Government indicates that bargaining exists in the public sector, but is more limited, and adds that on 24 February 2009 collective bargaining procedures were established in the public sector by Decree No. 535. The Committee notes this information with interest and expects that the new legal provision will promote collective bargaining in the prison sector.
9. 59. Regarding the refusal to grant trade union leave and the transfer of leaders to other jobs, the Government indicates that it is necessary to be provided with further indications on these allegations so as to be able to request information from the corresponding local authorities. The Committee notes this information and invites the union to provide this information to the Government so that it can determine the reasons for the refusal to grant trade union leave.
10. 60. As regards the allegations concerning the Municipality of Puerto Berrio, the Government says that, in the context of the restructuring process, the courts, in second instance, acquitted the Municipality of Puerto Berrio of charges of the violation of freedom of association and that during the conciliation procedure undertaken under the aegis of the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT), the mayor of Puerto Berrio indicated that it was not possible to reinstate the dismissed workers in the absence of a court order to do so and in view of the lack of funds for that purpose. The Government adds that there exist social programmes for the dismissed workers implemented by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Committee notes this information.