Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 371, Mars 2014

1. 640. The complaint is contained in communications from the Union of Workers of the enterprise Itaipú Binacional-Lado Paraguayo (STEIBI), the Union of Drivers and Services of the Alto Paraná (SICONAP/S), the Union of Workers of Itaipú Binacional (SITRAIBI) and the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) dated 26 September and 18 October 2011.
2. 641. At its meetings in March, June and October 2013, the Committee made urgent appeals to the Government and drew its attention to the fact that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 184th Session (November 1971), it would present a report on the substance of the case, even if it had not received the information or observations from the Government in due time. To date, no information has been received from the Government.
3. 642. Paraguay 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 complainants’ allegations

1. 643. In their communications of 26 September and 11 October 2011, the complainants state that STEIBI and SITRAIBI are first-level trade unions for the workers of the enterprise Itaipú Binacional-Lado Paraguayo (hereafter, the enterprise). SICONAP/S is a first-level trade union for all transport and services workers in the Alto Paraná department, including the workers in the enterprise and in its subcontractors. The enterprise is an institution established under article III of the treaty signed between the Republic of Paraguay and the Federative Republic of Brazil on 26 April 1973 and ratified by Paraguay under Act No. 389 of 11 July 1973.
2. 644. The complainants indicate that the enterprise signed a collective agreement on working conditions (CCCT) with the complainant organizations and that between June and September 2010 they submitted several complaints of non-compliance to the enterprise. They add that in December 2010, STEIBI requested the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Security to reject the enterprise’s application for approval of an addendum to the agreement signed with four minority trade unions (according to the complainants, STEIBI represents 81 per cent of the workers). However, the administrative authority denied the request and approved the addendum by Decision No. 1665 of 24 December 2010.
3. 645. The complainants report that the negotiations of the CCCT for the period 2011–12 were held between 10 March and 14 April 2011. In this context, a complaint was submitted to the authorities indicating that the enterprise was circulating malicious allegations that the trade unions had brought excessive demands to the negotiations, and that it was dividing the trade unions.
4. 646. The complainants report that on 26 April 2011, in an open demonstration of anti-union practice, the enterprise signed the CCCT for the period 2011–12 with several minority trade unions, sidelining the complainant organizations, which together represent 90 per cent of the workers. The complainants add that on 27 April 2011 they informed the enterprise management that their respective assemblies had rejected its counter-proposals and had decided to hold a 30-day strike, starting on 3 May 2011. The complainants report that, in an act of intimidation against the right to strike, the enterprise filed a complaint on 10 May alleging that the complainants on strike were blocking the enterprise’s entrances and applied for an injunction. This was rejected after the court registrar declared that the complaint was inadmissible.
5. 647. The complainants indicate that on 23 May 2011 documents were signed establishing the end of the CCCT negotiation with the enterprise, a supplementary agreement, and the end of strike with compromise agreement. In the last document, the enterprise agreed not to file any administrative or legal actions against the workers involved in the strike, regardless of whether they were members of the trade unions that declared the strike. The trade unions agreed not to file any legal and/or administrative actions for non-compliance with the CCCT for 2010–11 (according to the complainants, this demonstrates that the enterprise admits to non-compliance with the CCCT).
6. 648. The complainants report that, without observing the compromise agreement ending the strike, by way of reprisal against the trade unions, the enterprise: (1) terminated its relationship with the transport subcontracting companies (SICONAP/S had members working in those companies) without providing a reason and made the recruitment of workers in new transport companies contingent on them giving up their SICONAP/S membership, and (2) intends to introduce changes to an employment sector (tourism coordination), which would have the immediate effect of making STEIBI members redundant. Lastly, the complainants also report that the enterprise has established a new trade union which has been registered by the administrative authority.

B. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 649. The Committee regrets that, despite the time elapsed since the presentation of the complaint, the Government has not provided the information requested, despite being invited to do so by means of three urgent appeals (the last of these at its meeting in October 2013).
2. 650. Under these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body], the Committee finds itself obliged to present a report on the substance of the case without the benefit of the information that it had hoped to receive from the Government.
3. 651. The Committee recalls that the purpose of the whole procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this freedom in law and in fact. The Committee remains confident that, if the procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments on their side will recognize the importance of formulating, for objective examination, detailed replies concerning the allegations made against them.
4. 652. The Committee observes that, in the present case, the complainants allege that the enterprise: (1) failed to comply with the CCCT for the period 2010–11 which, according to the complainants, had been the subject of several complaints submitted to the enterprise and before the administrative authority; (2) in a clear demonstration of anti-union practice, signed the CCCT for the period 2011–12 with several minority trade unions, sidelining the complainant organizations, which together represent 90 per cent of the workers; and (3) did not comply with an agreement that it had signed with the complainant organizations with a view to ending the strike and took reprisals (according to the allegations, it terminated its contracts with transport companies that employed SICONAP/S members and made the recruitment of workers in the new transport companies contingent on them giving up their SICONAP/S membership; it intends to introduce changes to an employment sector (tourism coordination), which would have the immediate effect of making STEIBI members redundant; and has established a new trade union which has been registered by the administrative authority).
5. 653. In this regard, the Committee recalls “the importance which it attaches to the obligation to negotiate in good faith for the maintenance of the harmonious development of labour relations” and that “agreements should be binding on the parties” [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 934 and 939]. The Committee also wishes to recall that, on numerous occasions, it has stressed that “respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that workers should not be dismissed or refused re-employment on account of their having participated in a strike or other industrial action. It is irrelevant for these purposes whether the dismissal occurs during or after the strike” [see Digest, op. cit., para. 663]. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to send its observations on all the allegations made in this case without delay.