Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 365, Novembre 2012

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

1. 66. The Committee last examined this case at its March 2011 meeting. On that occasion, it made the following recommendation [359th Report, para. 544]:
   • As regards the dismissal of Messrs Alfredo Arriola Pérez and Manuel de Jesús Dionisio Salazar, the Committee takes note of the Government’s information that measures are being taken through the labour inspectorate to ascertain whether the dismissals were carried out for anti-trade union reasons. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments and of the labour inspectorate’s conclusions with regard to the reasons for the dismissals.
2. 67. In a communication dated 14 July 2011, the Government states that, according to the inspector in charge of the case, Messrs Alfredo Arriola Pérez and Manuel de Jesús Dionisio Salazar were dismissed by previous administrations and had received the severance benefits to which they were entitled. The employer stated that the workers could avail themselves of their rights under the law and the collective agreement. The inspector also states that of the dismissed workers, only Mr Manuel de Jesús Dionisio Salazar is present, since neither the court nor the union has been able to locate Mr Alfredo Arriola Pérez and that, in his various activities, the inspector observed that attempts to find him were in vain; the proceedings therefore remain ongoing.
3. 68. According to the inspector, the director of human resources stated that the institution was willing to cooperate with a view to reaching a favourable outcome for Mr Salazar but that he would have to submit a written request for a permanent position with the Higher Electoral Court. The former worker submitted a formal request on 16 April 2010. On 5 June 2010, the director of human resources informed the inspector that the positions under budget line 011 had been filled, but that the worker’s request had been sent to the plenary of the Higher Electoral Court, which was ready to consider the proposal in so far as there was a vacant position under the budget line requested. The worker was therefore asked to allow a reasonable time for receiving a positive or negative reply. On 4 October 2010, the inspector asked the worker to call on the Ministry of Labour to finalize the formalities but the worker failed to show up. The inspector states that the request could not be followed up because the complainant has not requested any measures to be taken. The Committee notes the information.