Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 331, Juin 2003

1. 308. The Textile Industry Workers of Colombia (SINTRATEXTIL), Barranquilla branch, sent its complaint in a communication dated 20 November 2002.
2. 309. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 24 February 2003.
3. 310. Colombia 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. 311. In its communication dated 20 November 2002, the Textile Industry Workers of Colombia (SINTRATEXTIL), Barranquilla branch, alleges that the Hilazas Vanylon Enterprise SA has, for more than ten years, violated and ignored the rights of workers belonging to the trade union. The complainant organization states that the enterprise pays workers belonging to the trade union a wage that is 50 per cent less than that which is paid to other workers. Because of this, and in order to obtain common wage levels, trade union members have had to resign from the trade union and relinquish their right to other benefits such as retroactive severance pay, stability and other usual prerogatives.
2. 312. The complainant organization indicates that these systematic violations were lodged as a complaint with the Ministry of Labour and that on various occasions they were verified by the authorities: Acts Nos. 1022, 1039 and 0781 of 24 October and 4 December 2000 and February 2001 (the complainant organization did not send these).
3. 313. The complainant organization also alleges that, on 7 March 2001, it lodged an administrative complaint with the Ministry of Labour for a decline in the labour situation of a member of the executive subcommittee, Lucila Mercado Ladeuth (violation of trade union immunity), a fact which was verified in Acts Nos. 0763 of 10 April 2001 and 1069 of 10 July 2001. The Ministry, as a result, issued resolution No. 000907 of August 2001 establishing that the Hilazas Vanylon Enterprise had violated the rules of trade union immunity and consequently ordering that the enterprise be fined. However, the complainant organization alleges that this fine was not implemented by the SENA, which is the administrative body with legal competency to do so.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 314. In its communication of 24 February 2003, the Government indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has competency to oversee and inspect compliance with labour standards, that is to say that when these are not complied with by an employer the Ministry issues sanctions, when and where it is not necessary to issue value judgments, in which situation competency belongs to the ordinary labour courts. It adds that in accordance with resolution No. 000907, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, through the Territorial Directorate for Labour and Social Security of Atlántico, fined the Hilazas Vanylon Enterprise SA the amount of 50 legal minimum monthly wages in force for preventing access to the Ministry of Labour employee charged with ascertaining the alleged violation of trade union immunity of the trade union official Lucila Mercado Ladeuth.
2. 315. The Government indicates that this resolution was the subject of various motions to appeal and to reverse the decision, which were resolved in resolutions Nos. 001031 of 12 September 2001 and 007931 of 25 June 2002, which upheld in its entirety the original resolution.
3. 316. With regard to the actions for the protection of constitutional rights initiated by the complainant organization, the Government states that these were not carried forward for procedural reasons (that is to say an in-depth investigation was not carried out).

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 317. The Committee notes that the allegations in this complaint refer to acts of anti-union discrimination against workers belonging to SINTRATEXTIL in the Hilazas Vanylon Enterprise SA, which can be seen as follows: (1) the decline in the labour situation of a trade union official (Lucila Mercado Ladeuth), verified by the administrative authority; and (2) the payment of salaries that are 50 per cent less than those earned by other workers not belonging to the trade union. The Committee furthermore notes that according to the complainant organization, as a consequence of these inferior labour conditions, a number of trade union members have had to resign their membership and relinquish their right to other benefits such as retroactive severance pay, stability and other usual prerogatives in order to receive the same salary as other workers.
2. 318. The Committee expresses its concern about these allegations but notes that the complainant organization has not sent the administrative acts according to which the payment of wages that are 50 per cent less to trade union members is verified (Acts Nos. 1022, 1039 and 0781 of 24 October and 4 December 2000 and February 2001). The Committee requests the complainant organization to send these acts. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to ensure without delay that the workers in the enterprise are not discriminated against in respect of wages because of their trade union membership, and to investigate whether, as indicated in the allegations, a number of trade union members have had to resign their membership as a result of the aforementioned wage discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
3. 319. The Committee recalls, in a general manner, that “no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his/her employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 1996, 4th edition, para. 696].
4. 320. With regard to the alleged decline in the labour situation of the trade union official, Lucila Mercado Ladeuth (violation of trade union immunity), the Committee notes that the enterprise refused to allow an investigation to verify this allegation and as such was fined the amount of 50 legal minimum monthly wages. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to see that an investigation is carried out without delay into this matter and if the alleged anti-union discrimination is proven, that it ensure that this situation is rectified immediately. The Committee also notes that the fine in question was not collected because the administrative body imposing it lacked the authority for this. The Committee requests the Government to take steps to apply the provisions of the labour legislation and to ensure that the fine is enforced without delay and to ensure that the procedures for imposing fines are truly effective in all the cases.