Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 328, Juin 2002

1. 661. The complaint is contained in a communication dated 3 November 2001 from the Single Trade Union of Workers of the "Sofía Imbert" Museum of Contemporary Art in Caracas (SUTRAMACCSI). The complaint has been supported by the following organizations: the National Trade Union of Public Employees of the Autonomous Institute of the National Library and Library Services (SBN), the Single Trade Union of Workers of the Teresa Carreño Foundation (SUTRAFUNTECA) and the Association of Workers of the Museum of Sciences of the Capital District (SINTRAMUCIEN).
2. 662. The Government replied in a communication dated 29 January 2002.
3. 663. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 664. In its communication of 3 November 2001, the Single Trade Union of Workers of the "Sofía Imbert" Museum of Contemporary Art in Caracas (SUTRAMACCSI) states that on 22 August 2001, it deposited with the Ministry of Labour the documents required by law for the registration of the union, and that on 31 August the Labour Inspectorate drew attention to formal defects or errors that needed to be rectified, which was in fact done on 18 September 2001.
2. 665. The complainant adds that on 1 October 2001, the employer, i.e. the (public) Foundation of the Museum of Contemporary Art, appealed to the Ministry of Labour to cancel the registration, alleging in general and unsubstantiated terms that trade union leaders had the status of "management employees"; on 19 October, a labour inspector was presented with the union’s evidence that its General Secretary (the only official questioned by the employer) did not have that status.
3. 666. On 30 October 2001, it was noted that the page numbering in the registration file had been altered from page 67 onwards and documents which purported to have a bearing on the status of workers in the union’s general secretariat and public relations office had been unduly inserted in the file.
4. 667. On 1 November 2001, the time allowed for registration elapsed and the legal protection against anti-union discrimination which had hitherto been enjoyed by the trade union’s founders expired; on 2 November, Ms. Sonia Chacón, the union’s Public Relations Secretary, who also enjoyed special maternity protection as she had recently had a child, was arbitrarily dismissed.
5. 668. One of the unions that supported this complaint (SUTRFUNTECA) states that Ms. Teresa Zottola, General Secretary of SUTRAMACCSI, was also dismissed on 13 November 2001, and that the Labour Inspectorate, working closely with the Foundation of the Museum of Contemporary Art, has been pushing ahead with the foundation of a parallel union, promoted by the Director of Human Resources. The trade unions that support the complaint by SUTRAMACCSI stress that the refusal to register this organization is linked to the fact that five cultural trade unions are needed to form a federation, and that figure would be reached with the registration of SUTRAMACCSI.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 669. In its communication of 29 January 2002, the Government supplies the registration certificate with which the labour inspector of Libertador Municipality in the Capital District certifies that the Single Trade Union of Workers of the "Sofía Imbert" Museum of Contemporary Art in Caracas (SUTRAMACCSI) complied with all the requisite procedures to obtain legal registration, in accordance with section 425, Title VII of the Organic Labour Act. It was accordingly granted legal certification and entered in the appropriate registry under No. 2454, heading 262, Vol. III, dated 3 December 2001.
2. 670. The Government emphasizes that the union was registered once all the legal requirements were met, since it is in the interests of the Government, as represented by the Ministry of Labour, to facilitate the active participation of all trade union organizations, as the law requires.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 671. The Committee notes that in the present case, the complainant and the organizations supporting the complaint have alleged the following: (1) the refusal of the authorities to register the complainant organization (SUTRAMACCSI); (2) the dismissal of the General Secretary and Public Relations Secretary of SUTRAMACCSI; and (3) connivance between the Labour Inspectorate and the (public) Foundation of the Museum of Contemporary Art to create a parallel union, promoted by the Director of Human Resources.
2. 672. As regards the first allegation, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government, according to which SUTRAMACCSI was registered on 3 December 2001. Given that the Government has not explained the reasons for the delay in granting registration, the Committee cannot but regret that the union was obliged to wait several months before obtaining registration, despite having rectified the formal deficiencies noted by the authorities, and urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that in future, registration of trade unions is not unjustifiably delayed.
3. 673. As regards the dismissal of Teresa Zottola and Sonia Chacón, General Secretary and Public Relations Secretary respectively of SUTRAMACCSI, the Committee regrets that the Government has not replied to the allegation in question. The Committee notes that according to the allegations, documents purporting to show that the trade union officials concerned did not in fact have the status of workers were improperly inserted in the registration file; according to the allegations, the foundation challenged the General Secretary’s right to hold that post before the authorities. The Committee notes that, according to the allegations, the dismissals in question occurred as the legal protection against anti-union discrimination which had been enjoyed by the trade union’s founders was coming to an end.
4. 674. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the principle according to which "No person shall be prejudiced in his employment by reason of his trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, whether past or present" [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, para. 690], and to the principle that "The dismissal of workers on grounds of membership of an organization or trade union activities violates the principles of freedom of association" [see Digest, op. cit., para. 702]. The Committee emphasizes that protection against dismissals of this type is especially desirable in the case of trade union officials to allow them to perform their trade union duties with the necessary independence, without being prejudiced on that account, and to ensure respect for the right of workers to elect their representatives freely. Under these circumstances, bearing in mind the fact that the Government has not denied the information supplied by the complainant, the Committee considers the possibility that the dismissal of the trade union officials Teresa Zottola and Sonia Chacón was motivated by their trade union membership and activities; it urges the Government to investigate promptly and impartially these dismissals and, if their anti-union nature is established, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the trade union officials in question are reinstated in their posts without delay. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
5. 675. Lastly, as regards the allegation concerning connivance between the Labour Inspectorate and the (public) Foundation of the Museum of Contemporary Art to establish a parallel trade union promoted by the Director of Human Resources, the Committee greatly regrets that the Government has not replied to this allegation and urges it to supply its observations as a matter of urgency. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 2 of Convention No. 98, according to which:
6. 1. Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other’s agents or members in their establishment, functioning or administration.
7. 2. In particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organisations under the domination of employers or employers’ organisations, or to support workers’ organisations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organisations under the control of employers or employers’ organisations, shall be deemed to constitute acts of interference within the meaning of this Article.
   • The Committee requests the Government to guarantee the effective implementation of these principles in practice.