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. 98. The Committee last examined the substance of this case (concerning allegations of dismissals and threats following the establishment of a committee to form a trade union and bargain collectively at the enterprise Agroindustrias Albay Arrocera de Guatemala SA) at its November 2008 meeting. On that occasion, taking account of the considerable time that had passed since the trade unionists were dismissed in May 2007, the Committee requested the Government to explain the basis for the reinstatement ruling and take any measures in its power to ensure that the company complied with the judicial decision in favour of the eight workers in question, pending a final ruling on the matter which should be consistent with the rights conferred by Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The Committee also requested the Government to ensure that the dismissed workers were paid wages due to them for days actually worked, and to inform it of the actions taken in response to the complaint brought before the Human Rights Ombudsman concerning alleged threats by the company against workers to force them to quit their jobs [see 351st Report of the Committee, paras 898–909].
2. 99. In a communication dated 30 March 2009, the Government states, with regard to the request for an explanation of the basis of the reinstatement ruling, that the Labour Code in article 209 (Title 6) stipulates that: “Workers shall not be liable to dismissal for forming a trade union. They enjoy immunity from dismissal from the moment at which they give written notification to the General Labour Inspectorate or through the latter’s representation of their intention to form a trade union, and shall enjoy such protection for a period of up to 60 days after registration of the union.” The Government also states that the Second Labour and Social Security Judge, in a communication dated 18 February 2009, in response to the request for information from the Foreign Affairs Directorate (paragraph (c)), states that Graciela Elizabeth Pérez García, Mauricia Morales Ochoa, Marta Azucena Veliz García, Wendy Roxana Donis Folgar, Zaida Amapola Morataya Luna, Ángela Rosa de María Folgar Martínez, Everilda Yanes Lemus and Claudia Janeth Salguero Caballeros lodged a complaint of dismissal and claim for reinstatement against the company, which was settled in their favour within the statutory period.
3. 100. The Government states, with regard to the Committee’s recommendation that it take measures within its power to ensure that the company complies with the judicial decision in favour of the eight workers and pay the wages owed to them, that the Second Labour and Social Security Judge upheld the partial payment of the wage arrears and payment of benefits due to each worker under the terms of current legislation, in the amount of 127,823.85 quetzales. The company deposited that sum on 22 April 2008, and actually paid out to the workers concerned on the 30th of that month through appropriate judicial deposits.
4. 101. The Government states with regard to this recommendation, that it informs the Committee of the action taken in response to the complaint brought before the Human Rights Ombudsman concerning alleged threats by the company owner against workers to force them to quit the enterprise, and that on 13 February 2009, the Foreign Affairs Directorate requested information from the Human Rights Ombudsman in accordance with the Committee’s request and the Government is still waiting for that information.
5. 102. The Committee takes note of this information. In particular it notes with interest that the arrears of wages have been paid in accordance with the ruling of the judicial authority. Under these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to confirm that the dismissed trade unionists have been reinstated in their posts. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the complaint before the Human Rights Ombudsman concerning threats by the company owner against workers to force them to quit.