Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 372, Juin 2014

1. 318. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2013 meeting and submitted an interim report to the Governing Body [see 368th Report, paras 521–544, approved by the Governing Body at its 318th Session (June 2013)].
2. 319. The Government sent new observations in a communication dated 28 May 2013.
3. 320. Honduras 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 321. In its previous examination of the case in June 2013, the Committee made the following recommendation on the matter still pending [see 368th Report, para. 544]:
   • The Committee regrets to observe that the Government has not responded to the allegations concerning the company Casa Comercial Mattews Cemcol Comercial y Similares and requests it to send its observations without delay.
2. 322. The Committee reproduces here the allegations of the complainant organization on the matter [see 368th Report, para. 524]:
   • In a communication dated 29 August 2012, FASH and SITRACCMACCOS allege that in 2012, the company Casa Comercial Mattews Cemcol Comercial y Similares, claiming a full restructuring of the company – but in reality seeking to dissolve the trade union – succeeded in getting many of the trade unionists to leave its employ and later dismissed the many other trade union members precisely when the trade union changed its statutes with a view to change from a company union to an industry-level union. The complainant organizations point out that at the date of the complaint the seven board members were the only ones that had not been dismissed; the employment relationship of all the remaining trade unionists had been terminated. The complainants have requested that the collective agreement be honoured, including the terms relating to the payment of wages and to the social benefits of those who were dismissed.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 323. In its communication dated 28 May 2013, the Government stated in relation to the allegations of a large number of dismissals and anti-union practices in the company Casa Comercial Mathews Cemcol Comercial y Similares, SA de CV, that, on 7 July 2012, a general inspection was conducted in the company. On that occasion, the inspectors concluded that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of association. The company was compelling workers to resign, in exchange for full payment of their benefits and the signing of an individual employment contract with another, non-unionized company belonging to the same group, with a view to dissolving the Workers’ Union of the Casa Comercial Mathews Cemcol Comercial y Similares (SITRACCMACCOS). The labour inspectors noted that any workers who refused were threatened with dismissal. Over a period of 15 days, the company’s workforce was reduced from 40 to ten workers. The Government adds that the company was notified on 18 July 2012 of the violations that had been observed, and that a further inspection was conducted on 5 November 2012, which concluded that the violations indicated in the notification document had not been remedied. On 30 April 2013, the General Labour Inspectorate issued the company with a fine of 10,000 Honduran Lempiras (HNL) and an official warning that the fine would be increased by 50 per cent in the event of a repeat offence.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 324. In relation to the allegations still pending concerning a large number of dismissals and anti-union practices in the company Casa Comercial Mathews Cemcol Comercial y Similares, SA de CV, the Committee takes note of the labour inspections to which the Government refers, which concluded that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of association, and of the General Labour Inspectorate’s issuance of a fine. The labour inspectors concluded that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of association, in view of the fact that the company was compelling workers to resign in exchange for full payment of their benefits and the signing of an individual employment contract with another, non-unionized company belonging to the same group, with a view to dissolving the SITRACCMACCOS. The labour inspectors noted that any workers who refused were threatened with dismissal. Over a period of 15 days, the company’s workforce was reduced from 40 to ten workers. The Committee observes that the fine of HNL10,000 (US$520.29) which was imposed is the maximum amount provided for under the legislation of Honduras. In the Committee’s view, this does not constitute, in the present case, a sufficient remedy against the violation of the right to freedom of association, which was established by the labour inspectors.
2. 325. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, for a number of years, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination and interference are sufficiently effective and serve as a deterrent. The Committee also notes the conclusions adopted in June 2013 by the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference on legal protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, calling for an effective change to the law and practice with a view to ensuring the full application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and for the development of tripartite dialogue to resolve the matters concerned.
3. 326. The Committee firmly expects that the Government will, in the near future, take all the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend its legislation to ensure comprehensive protection against anti-union discrimination, in particular in case of anti-union dismissals by providing for reinstatement in the previous position or for penalties which serve as a sufficient deterrent against such acts. In the event that reinstatement is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, the union members concerned should receive adequate compensation which would represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction. The Committee refers the legislative aspect of this case to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, which is already dealing with this matter. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to state whether the company has appealed against the fine imposed by the labour inspectorate and whether the union members who were dismissed or compelled to resign have lodged an appeal in this connection. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of any appeals lodged.