Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 382, Juin 2017

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

1. 21. The Committee last considered this case at its June 2008 session [see Report No. 350, paras 44–46]. On that occasion, the Committee again invited the Government and the Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva to seek a solution regarding compensation for municipal employees who were dismissed in 1993 in violation of the collective agreement.
2. 22. The Committee takes note of the various communications sent by the Public Employees’ Trade Union of the Municipality of Neiva (the latest of which is dated 24 September 2013) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia, Huila Section (the latest of which is dated 10 April 2015), alleging persistent non-compliance with the Committee’s recommendations concerning compensation for the 155 employees of the Municipality of Neiva who were dismissed in 1993 in violation of the municipality’s collective agreement.
3. 23. The Committee also takes note of the communication dated 30 May 2011 from the Public Servants’ and Employees’ Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila, in which the trade union states that: (i) the Committee’s recommendations regarding the dismissal by the municipality of Pitalito of all employees and union members of the Public Servants’ and Employees’ Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila in 1993 have not been followed; and (ii) contrary to the Committee’s understanding in its report of 2006, although the provisions of the collective agreement on security of tenure had been violated, the Supreme Court did not order the payment of compensatory damages but merely the payment of wages for the equivalent of a period of notice.
4. 24. The Committee also takes note of the Government’s communication dated 27 October 2015, stating with regard to the employees of the municipality of Neiva that: (i) the case concerns national restructuring and the abolition of posts, areas in which the Committee has no competence; (ii) as the Committee has been informed, Colombia’s justice system and, in particular, its Constitutional Court has already issued many rulings in this case; (iii) in the light of the statement by the Constitutional Court that its rejection of several appeals lodged by the employees “is not incompatible with the need for the Government and the trade unions to take action in order to give appropriate effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association”, the Committee’s recommendations were raised in the Special Committee for the Handling of Conflicts referred to the ILO (CETCOIT); and (iv) the parties appeared before the CETCOIT on 27 June 2013 and although some rapprochement and dialogue was achieved, it was not possible to reach consensus.
5. 25. While taking due note of the information provided by the Government, the Committee recalls that since this case was first opened in 1998, it has been considered on its merits on six occasions and this is the fourth consideration of the effect given to its recommendations. The Committee also recalls, with regard to the allegations relating to the employees of the municipality of Neiva, that: (i) the Ministry of Labour stated at the time that the dismissal of 155 municipal employees constituted a violation of the collective agreement and imposed a corresponding fine on the municipality; (ii) the employees who brought the matter before the court requested reinstatement, which they were denied because their posts had been abolished; (iii) the Committee has observed that although the Constitutional Court denied the employees’ appeals, it did not rule on the merits of the case; and (iv) during its successive considerations of the present case, the Committee has requested on seven occasions that the employees dismissed by the municipality be compensated for violation of the provisions of their collective agreement on security of tenure. The Committee also takes note of the additional information provided by the Public Servants’ and Employees’ Trade Union of Pitalito-Huila concerning an issue similar to that involving the municipal employees of Neiva.
6. 26. Recalling that mutual respect for the commitments undertaken in collective agreements is an important element of the right to bargain collectively and should be upheld in order to establish labour relations on stable and firm ground [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 940], the Committee expresses its concern at the fact that, 25 years after the events, the municipal employees dismissed in violation of the collective agreements governing their working conditions have yet to receive compensatory damages. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full respect for the binding nature of collective agreements in the future. Additionally it once again invites the Government to seek a solution enabling the employees of the two municipalities whose collective agreements were violated to obtain compensation.