Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 370, Octobre 2013

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

1. 16. With reference to Case No. 2858, the Committee recalls that the National Federation of Federal Police Officers (FENAPEF) alleged that in carrying out trade union activities several of its officials suffered acts of anti-union discrimination by the police authorities. At its November 2012 meeting, when examining the substance of the case, the Committee took due note that the Government, on a tripartite basis, proposed developing a draft bill to prevent, investigate and combat anti-union practices. With regard to the specific alleged acts of anti-union discrimination against the six union officials, the Committee regretted that the Government had merely stated that the administrative disciplinary proceedings could be appealed in the courts and that the principles of due process were respected. On this basis, the Committee formulated the following recommendations [see 365th Report, para. 281]:
   • (a) The Committee expects that the draft bill on anti-union discrimination will shortly be submitted to the Executive and recalls that, if it so wishes, it can make use of ILO technical assistance in this process. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed thereof.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to inform it about the outcome of the administrative disciplinary proceedings concerning five union officials and whether appeals have been lodged in this regard. The Committee also regrets the delay in the reinstatement proceedings initiated seven years ago by Mr José Pereira Orihuela, President of the Union of Federal Police Officers of Roraima and requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this case.
2. 17. With reference to Case No. 2939, the Committee notes that, in a communication dated 16 May 2011, the Union of Federal Police Officers of the State of Paraiba (SINPEF/PB), supported by FENAPEF, submitted a complaint relating to matters that had already been examined in the framework of Case No. 2858 and that consequently the Committee decided to examine them together. In particular, the complainant organization provides further details about the disciplinary proceedings against the trade union official Mr Francisco Leodécio Neves, Deputy Director of Communications, for having published an article criticizing the police’s investigation methods (according to the complainant organization, although the Police Disciplinary Committee concluded that the trade union official in question had not committed any offence and requested that the case be closed, the federal police authorities asked that the disciplinary proceedings be reopened). The Committee notes that, in its reply of 4 March 2013, the Government states that it has not yet been possible to establish a definition in national legislation of anti-union conduct, but that a draft bill is currently under discussion in the Industrial Relations Council – a tripartite body – whose principal objective is to prohibit anti-union practices. The Government further indicates that the federal police has been asked to inform it of the final outcome of the reopening of the administrative disciplinary proceedings against the abovementioned trade union official.
3. 18. In these circumstances, the Committee refers to its previous recommendations and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments on all the pending issues.