Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Honduras (Ratification: 1956)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Government provided the following written information.

With technical support from the ILO, a Labour Code Reform Committee of the Ministry of Labour was currently preparing a draft text focusing on 13 sections of the Labour Code to bring it into line with the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and four sections to bring the Labour Code into line with Convention No. 98 (including section 469 of the Code dealing with sanctions in cases of anti-union discrimination). The draft sections, which would take due account of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, will be submitted first to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and then to the Economic and Social Council (CES). Draft section 469 specifically provides that the fines should be increased, from the present level of 200 to 10,000 Honduran lempiras (HNL), to five to 20 times the minimum wage, that is from HNL32,650 to HNL130,600 at the current average minimum wage of HNL6,530 (US$310), and that for repeat offences the relevant fine should be increased by a further 50 per cent.

The Committee of Experts also requested that it be informed of the judicial sentences handed down by courts for acts of anti-union discrimination. The Ministry of Labour and Social Security expects to receive this information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office shortly and it will be sent to the Committee of Experts in due course. As to the absence of adequate and comprehensive protection against all acts of interference and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanction for such acts, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to take into account that the protection afforded by Article 2 of the Convention is broader in scope than that provided for under section 511 of the Labour Code. As indicated above, a committee within the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was working, with technical support from the ILO, on a proposal to amend section 511 and bring it into line with Article 2 of the Convention. In due course, this proposal would be submitted to the authorities at the Ministry of Labour Social Security and subsequently to the CES, taking full account of the recommendations of the Committee of Experts. The draft reform of section 511 of the Code provides for fines for acts of interference on the part of employers of between five and 20 times the minimum wage, which would be imposed by the General Labour Inspectorate. The draft also provides that, when members who represent the employers, or who hold managerial posts, or are in positions of trust are elected to a trade union board, the elections will be declared null and void.

Turning to Article 6 of Convention No. 98 (the right to collective bargaining of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State), the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, following up on the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, had drawn up a proposal to amend sections 534 and 536 on public servants’ right of association and limitations thereto. The draft amendments provide that public servant trade unions have the right to submit petitions in order to improve their general working conditions. In addition, the proposed reform provides that public servant trade unions would have all the powers of other workers’ unions and that their petitions would be handled on the same basis as all others, even when the workers in question cannot call or conduct a strike.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative referred to the political, economic and social conditions of his country that were having an impact on the subject under discussion. He mentioned the achievements of the current administration in the areas of planning, civic participation, productivity, development and minimum wages, and endorsed and updated the replies to the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009, 2011 and 2012. With regard to the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination owing to the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code, he stated that section 469 as amended would read as follows:

Any person who by violations or threats in any way infringes the right to freedom of association shall incur a fine of five to 20 times the minimum wage, to be imposed by the General Labour Inspectorate, subject to full verification of the facts of the violation concerned.

For repeated offences, the standard fine shall be increased by 50 per cent.

Regarding cases in which criminal penalties had been imposed for acts of anti-union discrimination, he mentioned that the requested information was still awaited from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was undergoing a reform process further to the work of an audit board appointed by the National Congress. Nevertheless, he observed that precedents already existed in the Supreme Court of Justice (such as appeal cases Nos 401-2005, 326-2009 and 54-2005), and that the abovementioned information would be transmitted through official channels in due course. With respect to the absence of protection against all acts of interference and the lack of penalties that acted were sufficiently dissuasive, he indicated that work was in progress to amend section 511 of the Labour Code with a view to bringing it into line with Article 2 of Convention No. 98. Section 511 as amended would read as follows:

Trade union members who, by virtue of their posts in the enterprise, represent the employer or hold managerial posts or positions of trust or are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues shall be barred from election to the executive committee of a primary level or enterprise trade union or from appointment as union officers. The foregoing provision applies to managers, deputy managers, heads of personnel, private secretaries working for the executive committee, the management or the administration, department directors (chief engineer, chief medical officer, legal adviser, technical directors, etc.) and any other similar posts. Should any union member holding any of the abovementioned posts be elected, the election shall be deemed null and void. Any union member who has been duly elected and then takes up one of the abovementioned posts shall automatically relinquish his/her trade union office.

Should any of the situations described in the first paragraph of this section occur, it shall be deemed an act of interference by the employers against the workers or workers’ organizations and shall incur a penalty of five to 20 times the minimum wage, to be imposed by the General Labour Inspectorate.

With regard to the right to collective bargaining of officials not engaged in the administration of the State, work had been undertaken on a proposal to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code relating to the right of association of public employees and the limitations thereon.

Section 534 as amended would read as follows:

The right to organize in trade unions shall extend to workers throughout the public service, with the exception of members of the armed forces of Honduras and police forces of any kind. Public employee trade unions shall have the power to submit to representatives of the institutions lists of demands designed to improve their general conditions of employment, as established in section 56 of the present Code.

Section 536 as amended would read as follows:

Public employee trade unions shall have all the powers of other workers’ unions and their lists of demands shall be handled on the same basis as all others, even when they are not entitled to call or conduct a strike.

The Government of Honduras was ready to submit a report to the Committee of Experts containing updated information on further developments regarding the steps taken to bring the labour legislation into line with the ratified Conventions, in the framework of the CES, with support from the ILO. The Government considered that as a result of the efforts made and the technical support of the Office it had been possible to make progress on the preliminary drafts for the reform of the Labour Code, and those drafts would require a consensus involving workers and employers to achieve the proposed objectives.

The Worker members recalled that, since 1998, ten observations on the application of Convention No. 98, in particular on the need for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs, were addressed to the Government. No developments had taken place to date. Yet, in 2001, the Government had announced a revision of the Labour Code with respect to two points: sanctions against persons violating the right to organize freely and protection against dismissal of workers envisaging to establish a trade union. The Government had also committed to set up a system of dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. With regard to the issue of protection against acts of interference raised by the Committee of Experts, national legislation merely provided that unionized workers who, on account of their duties in the enterprise, held management posts or positions of trust or who were easily able to exercise undue pressure on their colleagues, could not be part of the executive committee of the union. The comments contained in the reports of the Committee of Experts in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013 demonstrated the continued unwillingness of the Government with regard to the follow-up measures requested.

The Worker members recalled that this “double footnote case” illustrated the criteria used to identify such cases (seriousness and persistence of the problem, urgency of the situation, quality and scope of the Government’s response, and in particular the clear and repeated refusal on the part of a State to comply with its obligations). They referred to the written information supplied by the Government in which it announced a series of reforms underway with the objective of bringing the Labour Code in line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and to modify the amount of fines. However, the Worker members emphasized the lateness of this announcement and the confidence problem that arose in this regard, as government authorities could have submitted these legislative changes to the workers a long time ago so that they could have been discussed within the competent tripartite bodies. In its 2009 report, the Committee of Experts had raised new questions to which no answers were provided by the Government, for instance as regards: anti-union practices in export processing zones; delays in the administration of justice in cases of anti-union practices; non-compliance with court orders to reinstate trade unionists; the setting up of parallel organizations by employers; a draft act which could limit the right of collective bargaining to unions representing more than 50 per cent of the total number of employees in the enterprise; and numerous anti-union dismissals in various enterprises in the export processing zones, cement and bakery industries. The issue of the right to collective bargaining for public servants not engaged in the administration of the State had also been raised. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had indicated in 2009 that the procedure of “respectful statements” referred to by the Government, could not be considered as being in accordance with Convention No. 98. All issues had once again been raised in the 2012 observation.

The Worker members recalled that the fundamental right to collective bargaining was only meaningful and effective if workers’ organizations were independent, outside the employers’ control and free from interference from the authorities. They emphasized that serious problems persisted concerning the right to collective bargaining in practice, particularly in the education sector, where a virulent anti-union harassment was exercised against unions. Twenty-three union leaders of four organizations of teachers had been removed from office and dismissed; only two had been reinstated in their former jobs. In March 2012, the Ministry of Education had eliminated, without negotiation, the principle of deduction of union dues at source, thereby depriving unions of their financial resources. More than 1,000 teachers had been suspended for several days for taking part in union meetings. Without the ability to organize and participate in union meetings, and with the unions being beheaded, one could wonder how collective bargaining could be free and effective within the meaning of Convention No. 98. In the public sector, wages were frozen, collective bargaining was paralyzed and, when negotiations took place, collective agreements were not applied. Precarious work, called “hourly work”, without a contract and not covered by collective bargaining, was on the rise. Recalling more generally that, in terms of observance of working conditions, the fines were so low that it was cheaper to pay them than to remedy the situation, they stated that, although technical assistance had often been proposed, the present situation illustrated the persistent refusal of the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that the right to collective bargaining was upheld.

The Employer members stated that the comments of the Committee of Experts were based on observations made some years ago by the ITUC relating to legislative matters, the creation of parallel unions and anti-union practices. With regard to legislative matters, they indicated that they did not agree with the Committee of Experts that there was insufficient protection against anti-union acts and that penalties were inadequate. In fact, the Convention did not provide for specific measures; rather, mechanisms appropriate to national circumstances should be put in place. The Convention did not require the imposition of fines. The fines established in the Labour Code ranged from US$12 to US$200, to ensure that they could be adapted to the severity of the offence and an employer’s ability to pay. It was impossible, without supplementary information, to determine whether the amount of the fines served as an effective deterrent. The Committee should have sought additional statistics on cases of anti-union discrimination, instead of requesting that the fines be increased.

With regard to section 511 of the Labour Code, the Employer members recalled that the Committee of Experts had considered that sufficiently dissuasive sanctions should also be imposed against acts of interference by employers in workers’ organizations. In that respect, they indicated that the situation and the type of protection necessary should have been investigated. In fact, section 511 provided for mechanisms to be established only where necessary. The observation of the Committee of Experts did not mention problems of interference by employers in the operation or administration of trade union organizations. Neither did it indicate that the protection provided for in section 511 was insufficient. With regard to the right of public servants not employed in the state administration to bargain collectively, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code should be amended to allow unions of public employees to submit lists of claims and sign collective agreements. At the same time, they took note of the Government’s statement that such matters would be examined by the CES in the framework of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

A Worker member of Honduras stated that the situation of systematic violations of workers’ labour and human rights in Honduras was the result of non-compliance with the national labour legislation and the ratified ILO Conventions. He denounced the fact that acquired rights were being restricted or removed altogether, the rights to organize and collective bargaining were not being respected, there was undue interference in internal trade union affairs, the unions’ executive committees received threats, trade union leave was cancelled and the entire trade union movement was constantly being harassed.

Another Worker member of Honduras observed that the Government neither safeguarded nor protected labour rights and human rights. Section 120 of the general provisions of the General Budget of the Republic approved by the National Congress for 2013 had frozen civil servants’ salaries and collective bargaining in decentralized, devolved and independent state enterprises. He also denounced the dismissals of union leaders, in violation of trade union immunity, the creation of parallel unions and the dismantling of unions that had been legally established. With respect to the Workers’ Union of the National Autonomous University of Honduras (SITRAUNAH), the speaker observed that since 2007 it had not been possible to negotiate a collective agreement. The situation had become so serious that the union leadership had been dismissed and complaints had been submitted to the criminal courts. The establishment of a parallel union had been encouraged with a view to its participation in collective bargaining. Regarding the Workers’ Union of the National Pedagogical University (SITRAUPN), he drew attention to the non-compliance with and failure to negotiate collective agreements and to the creation of a parallel workers’ association. The speaker also mentioned the non-compliance with and failure to negotiate collective agreements in the cases of the Workers’ Union of the Danlí municipality, the Diario Tiempo Workers’ Union, the Workers’ Union of the Institute for Public Servants’ Retirements and Pensions (SITRAIJUPEM), the Workers’ Union of the Executive Directorate of Revenues (DEI), the Workers’ Union of the National Vocational Training Institute (SITRAINFOP), the Workers’ Union of the National Agrarian Institute (INA), the Beverage and Allied Industries Workers’ Union (STIBYS), the workers of the Comayagua municipality and the Workers’ Union of the Honduran Institute of Children and the Family (SITRAIHNFA). In view of the above, he requested that a direct contacts mission be sent to investigate in situ the allegations made in plenary.

An observer representing Education International (EI), denounced the refusal of trade union leave to the members of central executive committees of four educational organizations, the dismissal of 20 union leaders who had retained their posts thanks to trade union immunity, and the dismissal of over 1,000 education workers on the ground that they had attended assemblies in 2012 and 2013; 50 workers were in the process of being dismissed. She also mentioned interference in trade union affairs, the suspension since March 2011 of deductions of union dues, the criminalization of protests and strikes, and the existence of a smear campaign by the Government. Moreover, the police attacks during peaceful demonstrations that had led to the death of Ms Ilse Ivania Velásquez Rodríguez in March 2011, had remained unpunished.

The Employer member of Honduras stated that, while allegations had been made of acts of anti-union discrimination (without however making reference to any specific cases), he considered that there was adequate protection of the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining in the country. The speaker refuted the view that the amount of the fines prescribed for acts of anti-union discrimination was too low. Moreover, he considered that the amount of the fine did not impact on the ability of the administrative and judicial authorities to impose sanctions on both private and public parties that violated those rights. The Criminal Code had indeed been amended without consultation; however, the amendment in no way hindered protection of freedom of association and collective bargaining from an administrative or judicial point of view. He expressed support for the proposed revision of section 469 of the Labour Code and recalled that from 1992 to 1995, with assistance from ILO experts, a tripartite consultation process had taken place with a view to revising the Labour Code. The draft revision, which included the elements that had been referred to during the current discussion, should have been taken up by the CES. Regrettably, it had not been submitted to the legislative body by the Government of the time. Turning to the lack of adequate protection against acts of interference, he agreed that section 511 of the Labour Code needed to be revised, as did all other provisions that would be deemed unnecessary. He added that he would not pronounce himself on any specific case since none were mentioned in the allegations. As for the prohibition of concluding collective agreements in the public sector, it was clear that, in that regard, the allegations were false, since there were collective agreements in central Government, in the municipalities, in the autonomous institutions and in the decentralized institutions. He regretted that the Government had not submitted the information on time and correctly. He also drew attention to the fact that all issues highlighted by the Committee of Experts must be examined and approved by the CES before being sent to the National Congress. The Labour Code needed to be revised, in line with the provisions of Convention No. 144, with a view to bringing it into conformity with the Conventions that had been ratified.

The Government member of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the Government members of the Committee which were members of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean countries (GRULAC), welcomed the initiatives of the Government to reform the provisions of the Labour Code which were highlighted in the report of the Committee of Experts, and thanked the Government representative for the additional information provided which illustrated its commitment to comply with Convention No. 98, taking into account the recommendations formulated by the Committee of Experts. Cooperation was of the utmost importance, and they trusted that the ILO would continue to provide the necessary technical assistance to Honduras, and encouraged all social partners to spare no efforts to maintain a constructive dialogue so that the labour law reform would culminate in a satisfactory solution for the three parties.

The Worker member of Mexico indicated that the seriousness, persistence and urgency of this case justified sending a direct contacts mission to the country so as to promote the rule of law based on a legal system that guaranteed the workers’ right to organize and collective bargaining. The Government did not recognize the legal personality of genuine unions but granted it to purported unions created by employers. When, exceptionally, workers succeeded in concluding a collective agreement, it was not complied with. Also, workers were not allowed to go on strike in the event of breach of the collective agreement. This was a situation similar to that of Mexico, where the collective agreements registered with the local conciliation and arbitration boards only contained minimum legislative requirements and never adjusted wages. Indeed, those were collective agreements signed by trade unions that enjoyed support from employers, without knowledge of the workers. The similarity between this system and the situation in Honduras raised the suspicion that the collective bargaining model of Honduras had been exported from Mexico.

The Worker member of the United States stated that, in March 2012, 25 Honduran unions and labour federations and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) had filed a petition to request investigation of abuses of labour rights under the labour chapter of the Dominican Republic – Central America–United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA–DR). The complaint had been accepted by the US Department of Labor in May 2012, in recognition that violations cited in the petition must be investigated, since the trade agreement required Honduras and the United States not only to comply with national laws but also with international labour standards of the ILO, in particular to respect “freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining”. He indicated that the Committee of Experts was vital to the supervision of international labour standards, which were increasingly being used in bi-national and multilateral agreements that were key to international trade and industrial relations in multinational companies. In Honduras, the State had continuously failed to protect workers’ rights, employers had not respected repeated efforts by workers to claim those rights, and no remedy had been provided when workers had demonstrated the violation of rights. According to the Committee of Experts’ observation, the ITUC had reported in 2009, 2011 and 2012 ongoing anti-union practices in the export processing zones; anti-union dismissals; slow proceedings dealing with complaints of anti-union practices; and non-compliance with court orders to reinstate dismissed trade unionists. As the cases in the CAFTA petition demonstrated, the Government had failed to respond to those violations, such infringements continued impunity and employers had committed more violations as recently as 26 April 2013.

The speaker presented to the Committee one of the many cases described in the petition. An automobile parts manufacturer (joint venture between United States’ and Korean companies), which employed approximately 4,000 workers for export production purposes, had refused to receive notice of the union’s legal registration, had rejected the bargaining proposal duly presented in 2011 and had illegally dismissed the elected union leaders in January and February 2012. The Government had consistently failed to enforce laws to reinstate those union leaders. In March 2012, the union had held elections to replace the dismissed leaders but two days later three of the newly elected union leaders had been dismissed. In November 2012, the union had again presented its bargaining proposal according to the law, which the company had refused. On 4 March 2013, the union and management had agreed on terms of bargaining. On 6 March, the union had again presented its bargaining proposal to the company and the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. The company had repeatedly asked to reschedule the first negotiating session, using stalling tactics. The union had filed a complaint with the Ministry over the company’s refusal to bargain. After having been refused entry three times and instructed to return at a later stage, a ministry official had declared that all efforts had been exhausted and had requested the Ministry to move to the mediation phase. Throughout April, the management had held mandatory meetings with workers, threatening to close the factory because of the union, and had dismissed at least 108 union members, including all remaining elected union leaders. Yet, in November 2012, the company had been hiring hundreds of workers, reaching a total of 4,200 workers before the mass firings had begun. As documented in numerous human rights reports, the Government regularly used its powers, including the police and military, to enforce law and order during protests of civil society, teachers and unions. However, in the case of enforcing workers’ rights, the State did not use those or any of its powers. He expressed concerns about broader political freedoms and human rights in civil society in Honduras. He trusted that the Committee could reach meaningful conclusions regarding the facts in the present case, and considered that a direct contacts mission of the ILO would be necessary to address the consistent failure of the Government to respect the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Worker member of Panama considered that the Committee had the responsibility to take measures and follow up on the request of the Honduran workers to send a direct contacts mission to the country, taking into account the seriousness of the allegations (deaths and imprisonments). It was necessary to send a message of peace to the region. He also deemed regrettable that, as in Panama, union leaders were being called to trial and made subject to precautionary measures.

The Worker member of Nicaragua, referring also to the Common Trade Union Platform for Central America (PSCC), the Federation of Teachers’ Organizations of Central America (FOMCA) and Education International for Latin America, endorsed and supported the allegations and demands made. The authorities had consistently violated labour legislation with regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining. Despite having resulted from collective bargaining and being enshrined in the Constitution, the Teachers Statute had been violated. Education workers who had taken part in protests had had their wages reduced. He also referred to the audit undertaken in the Institute for the Social Security of Teachers.

The Worker member of Brazil recalled that the Committee of Experts had been citing the Government’s non-compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98 for years. If democracy was to work properly, it was essential that the rights embodied in those Conventions be respected. The legal system in force in the country did not allow workers to establish and join organizations freely or to engage in collective bargaining, and it encouraged political and financial interference in trade unions by the employers. There was no effective legal machinery to prevent such anti-union behaviour because the fines imposed were not dissuasive and because the judicial procedures were slow. Moreover, the right to strike was hampered by the fact that the requisite quorums for taking strike action were too high. Those requirements were also contrary to the principles laid down by the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Government representative said that much effort had been invested in bringing the Labour Code into line with the Conventions, which illustrated the Government’s goodwill. He also stated that tripartism was one of the Government’s objectives. To that end, measures were being taken with a view to amending the regulatory framework of the CES. Likewise, within this body, discussions were being planned on the new labour inspection law and on amending the sections of the Labour Code in order to bring it into line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Nonetheless, Honduras was embarking on an election period which would culminate in November 2013; the necessary reforms would therefore have to wait until the new government had been elected.

The Worker members recalled the comments that the Committee of Experts had been formulating since 1998 and noted with regret the Government’s lack of will to implement its recommendations, even though they were very clear. According to the report, the Convention was not currently being applied in Honduras. However, the Government had recently requested the technical assistance that the ILO had been offering for years, which suggested that the situation had evolved and was a sign of goodwill on the part of the Government. As the Worker members saw it, one constructive move would be to propose that a direct contacts mission be sent to the country to facilitate the reforms that the Government had announced and to ensure that their implementation benefited from tripartite dialogue. The mission could present an annual follow-up report to the Committee of Experts which would examine the case as long as necessary in a special chapter of its report.

The Employer members, noting that the discussion was about compliance with one of the fundamental Conventions, it was a double footnoted case, and it had already been examined on numerous occasions, it was a case of serious problems of compliance with the Convention. They therefore supported the Worker members proposal for a direct contacts mission so that, with ILO assistance and the participation of the social partners, the Government could take steps to have the legislation amended so as to bring it into line with the Convention.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government and the discussion that ensued.

The Committee noted that the outstanding issues concerned the need for protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference in both law and practice, including in the export processing zones, and the right to collective bargaining for public employees.

The Committee noted the Government’s statements according to which the authorities were currently working on a partial reform of the Labour Code with the technical assistance of the ILO, taking into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, in order to strengthen the protection in law against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. Furthermore, there was a proposal by the Secretary of Labour to amend the Labour Code so as to ensure that the representatives of employees of public institutions would be able to present lists of claims, just like other unions; these texts would then be submitted to the CES, before being submitted to Parliament.

The Committee stressed the importance of the reform process being carried out in consultation with all the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned. Observing that these matters have been pending for many years, the Committee expressed the firm hope that the abovementioned amendments would be submitted to the legislature in the near future so that it would be able to note tangible progress towards full compliance of the legislation and practice with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to ensure the effective modification of the law and the practice for the full application of this fundamental Convention and to develop tripartite dialogue to resolve the matters concerned. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts for examination at its next meeting in 2013.

The Government representative indicated that his Government was creating the right environment for social dialogue so as to promote tripartism and freedom of association. The CES was the appropriate forum for the issue to be dealt with as a priority. The next step would be to transmit it to the National Congress. His Government did not believe that a direct contacts mission was necessary, but would nevertheless receive it and facilitate its work. He was certain that, when the next report was submitted, this Committee would be able to applaud the progress made.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 31 August 2018, and the Government’s reply in this respect. It also notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) and of the ITUC, received on 31 August and 1 September 2021, respectively, on issues being examined by the Committee in this observation. The Committee requests the Government to provide its reply in this respect.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee noted with interest the amount of the fines prescribed for anti-union acts in the Labour Inspection Act of 2017 and requested the Government to provide information on their application and impact. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) since the entry into force of the Act, businesses have taken greater care not to commit violations of this type; (ii) the Act has made it possible to provide effective protection against anti-union discrimination since it provides for the immediate reinstatement of members of executive committees who have been dismissed; and (iii) the increase in fines has contributed to a decrease in this type of violation. The Committee notes that, as the COHEP indicates, in addition to the provisions of the Labour Inspection Act, section 295 of Legislative Decree No. 130-2017 published in the Official Gazette of 10 May 2019, containing the new Penal Code, establishes discrimination in employment as an offence punishable by penalties of from 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment and a daily fine of from 100 to 200 days (each day having a value of not less than 20 lempiras (the equivalent of US$0.83) and not more than 5,000 lempiras (the equivalent of US$209)). The Committee notes with interest that this provision explicitly refers to discrimination in employment, public or private, against any person for being a workers’ legal or trade union representative. The Committee observes, however, that according to the Government, in 2019 and 2020, 222 complaints concerning anti-union acts were filed and are still being processed and that the ITUC also reports anti-union dismissals. The Committee expresses the hope that the implementation of the Labour Inspection Act combined with the Penal Code will ensure more effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and prevent their recurrence. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcomes of the aforementioned complaints and invites it to compile data on the average duration of legal proceedings (including appeals procedures) relating to discrimination on the grounds of trade union activities.

In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the application of Ministerial Agreement No. STSS-196-2015 which protects workers wishing to form trade unions and to examine, with the social partners, the possibility of incorporating the content thereof in the Labour Code. In this respect, the Government indicates that upon receipt of a request for registration of a collective agreement, the General Labour Directorate (DGT) is immediately informed so that it can verify that the right of workers to form a trade union is not being curtailed. It also indicates that on 27 January 2021, it sent a note to the President of the Sectoral Committee for the Handling of Disputes referred to the ILO (MEPCOIT) of the Economic and Social Council (CES) to assess with the social partners the possibility of incorporating the content of the Agreement in the Labour Code. The Committee notes the COHEP’s indication that it agrees with the proposal to incorporate the content of the agreement in the Labour Code through the CES and its further indication that this matter could be included in the discussion on the reform of the Labour Code, taking into consideration that protection for workers wishing to form a trade union should also be offered to those who decide not to join one. The Committee notes that, as indicated in the observation on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), although the health emergency did not allow the MEPCOIT to meet its commitments, it would be resuming them at the earliest opportunity. The Committee encourages the Government and the social partners to consider this matter in the context of the reform of the Labour Code and hopes that MEPCOIT resumes its activities as soon as possible. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee has been asking the Government, after consultation with the social partners and in the context of the process of reforming the Labour Code, to take the necessary measures to incorporate in the legislation explicit provisions that ensure effective protection against acts of interference by the employer, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, when carrying out an inspection, the DGT can identify whether there is any type of interference by the employer and that, if such is the case, corrective measures are applied through the labour inspectors. While it notes the Government’s indications, the Committee recalls that in order to ensure that effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention in practice, the legislation must make express provision for sufficiently dissuasive remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations, including against measures that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take due note of this matter in the process of reforming the Labour Code, and to provide information on the progress achieved in this respect.

Articles 4 and 6. Promotion of collective bargaining. Right of collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comment, the Committee, having taken note of the Government’s indication that various decentralized and centralized institutions were permitted to submit claims and engage in collective bargaining, requested the Government to specify the texts that recognized the right of workers to collective bargaining in these institutions, and how they were related to sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code, which provide that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or conclude collective agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Constitution of the Republic embraces the principles and practices of international law and establishes equal rights, including the right to collective bargaining. With regard to sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code, the Government indicates that while it is true that there are limitations on collective bargaining in the public sector, trade unions can submit “respectful statements” containing requests and allowing negotiations aimed at improving administrative organization or working methods. It indicates that there are “respectful statements” in four public institutions. The Committee further notes that the COHEP forwarded information provided by the DGT indicating that in the public sector, 34 collective agreements, two collective accords, nine special accords, 26 memorandums of understanding and four “respectful statements” are in place. The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) examined allegations of failure by a public institution to comply with a collective agreement and requested the Government to promote dialogue between the parties so that the collective agreement is fully implemented (see 386th Report, June 2018, Case No. 3268). The Committee observes that while it appears from the foregoing information that collective bargaining is in practice possible in certain public institutions, the fact remains that sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code do not allow unions of public employees to submit lists of claims or conclude collective agreements. The Committee further recalls that a system in which public employees may only submit to the authorities “respectful statements”, a mechanism that does not allow for real negotiations to take place with regard to conditions of employment, is not in accordance with the Convention. It further recalls that although Article 6 of the Convention excludes public servants engaged in the administration of the State (such as public servants in ministries and other comparable government bodies and their auxiliaries) from its scope of application, other categories of public servants and public employees (for example, employees of public enterprises, municipal services and decentralized entities, public sector teachers and transport sector personnel) should enjoy the guarantees provided for by the Convention and, therefore, be able to undertake collective bargaining with respect to their terms and conditions of employment, in particular their pay. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code so that the right to collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State is duly recognized in national law. It encourages the Government to address this issue in the context of the process of reforming the Labour Code and requests it to provide information in this respect.

Article 4. Collective bargaining on trade union leave. The Committee notes that, in the context of the aforementioned Case No. 3268, the CFA observed that according to section 95(5) of the Labour Code, the employer is not obliged to grant more than two days of paid trade union leave in each calendar month, and in no case more than 15 days in the same year. The CFA referred this legislative aspect of the case to the Committee. In the same way as the CFA, the Committee recalls that the payment of wages to full-time union officials should be up to the parties to determine, and the Government should authorize negotiation on the issue of whether trade union activity by full-time union officials should be treated as unpaid leave. The Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations and in the context of the Labour Code reform process, to take the necessary steps to review the legislation so that restrictions on the possibility of collective bargaining on remuneration for trade union leave be removed.

Application of the Convention in practice. Export processing zones. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in relation to ten inspections carried out in export processing zones following complaints of violations of trade union rights. It notes that half of the complaints were shelved because no evidence of violations of trade union freedom was found, four were referred for resolution and notification and in one case a fine was imposed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide full information in this respect, including the number of collective agreements concluded in export processing zones and the number of workers covered by them.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and by the COHEP on a number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, indicating the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide detailed information in this respect and once again requests the Government to report on the measures taken, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, to promote collective bargaining. On the other hand, recalling that a direct contacts mission which took place in Honduras in 2019 at the request of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in relation to Convention No. 87 received numerous allegations of violations of freedom of association in practice from trade union federations, especially in the agri-export and education sectors, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on collective bargaining in those sectors.

The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), and the Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CTH) transmitted with the Government’s report, which deal with issues examined by the Committee in this observation. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2017, which also relate to issues examined by the Committee in this observation, as well as the Government’s comments thereon. The Committee further notes the observations of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP), received on 22 August 2017, on issues examined by the Committee in this observation, as well as the respective comments made by the Government.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments on the observations of the CGT and CTH relating to problems in the collective industrial relations in the education sector, issues that are being examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in the framework of Case No. 3032.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as the fines established in section 469 of the Labour Code are merely symbolic. The Committee notes that the Government reports the adoption of a new Inspection Act, published on 15 March 2017 (Legislative Decree No. 178-2016). The Committee notes with interest that section 90 of the Act imposes fines of 300,000 Honduran lempiras (HNL) (equivalent to US$12,884.84) for any type of acts that prejudices freedom of association and that, according to COHEP, the entry into force of the Act resulted in the repeal of section 469 of the Labour Code. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Act establishes a fine of HNL250,000 for any hindrance of labour inspection. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application and impact in practice of the fines for anti-union acts established in the new Inspection Act.

The Committee also notes the approval of Agreement No. STSS-196-2015 establishing a mandatory nationwide administrative procedure to protect workers intending to establish a trade union and that the protection provided by this procedure begins as soon as the establishment of the trade union is notified and ends when the notice of legal personality is received. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Decision establishes guidelines to improve guidance services and inspections in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Committee also notes that the Decision provides that the General Labour Directorate shall notify the labour inspectorate whenever it is informed of the conclusion of a collective accord on conditions of employment so as to ensure that the inspectorate carries out an investigation to identify possible violations of freedom of association. While noting these initiatives with interest, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on their application in practice and to examine, with the social partners, the possibility of incorporating into the Labour Code the content of Agreement No. STSS 196 2015.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee recalls that, for many years, it has been indicating the need for the legislation to explicitly prohibit all the acts of interference covered by Article 2 of the Convention and to also establish remedies and sufficiently dissuasive penalties for such acts, as the general provisions contained in section 511 of the Labour Code are insufficient. While noting the Government’s indication that the new Inspection Act implicitly gives effect to the Convention, the Committee notes that the Act itself does not contain explicit provisions against acts of interference. The Committee is therefore bound to once again request the Government, after consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to incorporate into the legislation explicit provisions that ensure effective protection against acts of interference by the employer, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take due note of this issue in the process of reforming the Labour Code referred to in the Committee’s observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and to report any progress in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. Promotion of collective bargaining. Right of collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, the Committee, having noted that sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code provide that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or sign collective agreements, recalled that, although Article 6 of the Convention excludes public servants engaged in the administration of the State (such as public servants in ministries and other comparable government bodies and their auxiliaries) from the scope of application of the Convention, other categories of public servants and public employees (for example, employees of public enterprises, municipal services and decentralized entities, public sector teachers and personnel in the transport sector) should enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention and therefore be able to bargain collectively their terms and conditions of employment, and in particular their wages.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that collective bargaining by trade unions in the public sector, specifically those in the government sector, is limited, and that the same applies to the army and police forces. The Committee nevertheless notes the Government’s indication that, various decentralized and centralized institutions (the Ministry of Health, Finance, the National Children’s Institution, the Energy Enterprise of Honduras, the Secretariat of State for Infrastructure and Public Services, Hondutel and the National Autonomous Water and Sewerage Service) are permitted to submit claims and engage in collective bargaining. The Committee also notes that on 23 June 2016, a memorandum of understanding was signed setting the ordinary wage in the civil service at HNL1,800. While noting the information provided, the Committee requests the Government to specify the texts that recognize the right to workers to collective bargaining in these institutions, and how they are related to sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code. While welcoming the signing of the memorandum of understanding referred to by the Government, the Committee also requests the Government to provide comprehensive information on the agreements concluded in the public sector.

Application of the Convention in practice. Export processing zones. The Committee notes that the Government, in response to its previous request, indicates that ten inspections have been carried out in export processing zones. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the findings of the inspections in relation to freedom of association and to provide full information on the number of complaints of violations of trade union rights in export processing zones.

Anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the 2017 observations of the ITUC contain numerous reports of acts of anti-union discrimination in various sectors of the economy, including dismissals of trade union leaders and the creation of black lists. While taking note of the Government’s comments with regard to the actions taken by the competent authorities, the Committee expresses the hope that the entry into force of the new Inspection Act will ensure effective protection against such acts and will prevent their repetition.

Allegations of acts of corruption in the labour inspectorate in relation to trade union rights. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on alleged cases of corruption in the labour inspectorate in relation to the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been a significant decrease in the number of cases of corruption in which labour inspectors have provided information to third parties on the establishment of trade unions, and that various inspectors have been subjected to disciplinary measures, including dismissal. The Government adds that section 12 of the new Inspection Act establishes a series of principles and obligations governing the action of labour inspectors, and that a technical audit on inspection has been established and has been given the means to ensure technical independence, objectivity and impartiality in the verification of the work of inspectors and for receiving complaints. The Committee takes due note of this information and hopes that the action of the technical audit on labour inspection will make it possible to ensure the complete integrity of inspections. The Committee requests the Government to report the results of the work by the technical audit in its next report on the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee notes that the Government provides information on the registration of three collective labour accords in export processing zones between 2016 and 2017. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken, in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention, to promote collective bargaining, and to continue providing information on the number of collective agreements concluded and in force in the country, indicating the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of 2013, and the Government’s reply to those. The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC received on 1 September 2014 and of Education International (EI) received on 10 September 2014 and requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. The Committee notes that many of the issues raised by the EI have already been submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association within the framework of Case No. 3032, in which it is the complainant organization.

Regarding the dispute between the Government and teachers organizations in the education sector, the Committee has been noting for several years that the ITUC and the EI have been commenting in detail on the issue and that the report of the 2014 direct contacts mission indicates a lack of social dialogue and many legal reforms and unilateral measures by the authorities which have resulted in protests by teachers organizations, which have generated acts of violence. The Committee emphasizes the importance of restoring trust between the Government and teachers organizations and hopes that the authorities will foster a culture of social dialogue with the teachers’ organizations to resolve the current problems.

The Committee also notes the observations on the application of the Convention by the General Confederation of Workers (CGT) condemning the salary freeze in the public service and requests the Government to send its comments in this respect.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, June 2013)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that for many years its comments have referred to:

• -The lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties provided for in section 469 of the Labour Code for impairment of the right to freedom of association (from 200 Honduran lempiras (HNL) to HNL10,000, HNL200 being equivalent to around US$12) are obviously insufficient and merely symbolic. The Committee noted that, according to the Government, protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of workers’ employment is guaranteed by the provisions of: (i) article 128(14) of the Constitution of the Republic, which confers the right to freedom of association on employers and workers alike; (ii) section 517 of the Labour Code, which grants special state protection to workers when they notify their employers of their intention of forming a union and which provides that, from the date of such notification until receipt of the notice of legal personality, none of the notifying workers may be dismissed or transferred or suffer any impairment of their working conditions without due cause, as defined previously by the competent authority; and (iii) the provisions of the Code that impose the penalties indicated by the Committee. The Committee once again asked the Government to, in consultation with the social partners, take the necessary steps to amend the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code so as to make them dissuasive. Furthermore, the Committee again asked the Government to indicate specific cases in which section 321 of Decree No. 191-96 of 31 October 1996 (establishing penal sanctions for discrimination) has been used to apply sanctions for acts of anti-union discrimination.
• -The absence of full and appropriate protection against all acts of interference, and sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties against such acts. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s statement that the legislation does contain provisions to afford workers’ organizations adequate protection against all acts of interference by employers, a case in point being section 511 of the Labour Code, which bars from membership of executive committees of enterprise unions or first-level unions or from appointment to trade union office, members who, on account of their duties in the enterprise, represent the employer or hold management posts or positions of trust or who are able easily to exercise undue pressure on their colleagues. The Committee recalled in this connection that the protection of Article 2 of the Convention is broader than that afforded by section 511 of the Labour Code and that in order to ensure that effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention in practice, the legislation must make express provision for sufficiently dissuasive remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations, including against measures that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee again requested the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to these ends. The Committee notes that the Government’s proposal submitted to the Social and Economic Council in 2014 addresses this request.

Article 6. Right of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively. In its previous comments the Committee pointed out that, although Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from the Convention’s coverage, other categories of workers must be able to enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention and thus bargain collectively for their conditions of employment, including pay. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code barring unions of public employees from submitting lists of claims or signing collective agreements. The Committee again asked the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to take account to the abovementioned principle.

The Committee noted in its previous observation the discussion held in the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2013 in which that Committee, after noting that the authorities were working on a bill and proposal of a partial reform of the Labour Code with the technical assistance of the ILO and taking into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, emphasized the importance of ensuring that the reform process was carried out in consultation with all the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned and expressed the firm hope that the above bills would be submitted in the near future to the legislative authorities. The Committee on the Application of Standards requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to ensure the full application of the Convention and to establish a tripartite dialogue to overcome the problems noted.

The Committee notes the report of the direct contacts mission carried out in Honduras on 21 and 25 April 2014 and appreciates that the Government included in the mission’s mandate questions not only under this Convention but also under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Committee wishes to emphasize the conclusions of the direct contacts mission on the context and difficulties in industrial relations and the need to promote social dialogue through the Economic and Social Council (CES), which is a tripartite body:

The mission notes significant developments towards the objective of harmonization. Firstly, the ratification of Convention No. 144, dated 12 June 2012 and, secondly, the recent publication on 29 March 2014 of the Act on the Economic and Social Council (CES) (a body which was previously regulated by an Executive Agreement). Such developments are clear signals in favour of social dialogue. The above Act establishes that “the decisions taken by the CES shall be taken into account prior to the adoption of draft bills regulating socio-economic matters that are of particular importance in the regulation of such matters and other competences stipulated under section 4”, in section 2(1). Furthermore, it empowers the Council to give effect to the obligations under Convention No. 144 and other signed and adopted ILO Conventions, in section 7(3).

While in 2013 and 2014 there had been some successful attempts at tripartite social dialogue, such as the conclusion of agreements on fixing minimum wages, trade unions indicated to the mission a number of significant shortcomings in the social dialogue on the part of the former and current governments. Some of those concern the lack of tripartite consultations relating to several important acts (such as the new Act on employment paid by the hour or certain legal texts relating to social security) or consultation processes and even prior consultation processes which did not take account of the trade unions’ wish to be consulted jointly and with sufficient notice (and not, as was the case, separately). The trade unions indicated that this was an important issue for them, since they were progressing towards a trade union merger.

The mission took note of the Government’s indications regarding the political, economic and social context, and of its wish to address problems of this kind dynamically, promptly and creatively, taking into account the substantial, difficult and urgent economic and social challenges. In this regard, the mission wishes to emphasize the importance, when addressing labour and socio-economic problems, that the authorities ensure in-depth consultation with trade unions and the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) to reach, in so far as possible, joint solutions. In this regard, it is crucial that the new impetus given to the CES through the corresponding Act gives way to increased in-depth social dialogue within this tripartite body to allow the urgent measures cited by the Government to be reconciled with joint solutions with the social partners to the degree possible, which implies allocating a reasonable period of time to dialogue.

The mission notes that the confidence of the trade unions in the Government has diminished over recent years, owing to a long dispute between the authorities and teaching sector organizations which resulted in legislative amendments without consultation, penalties imposed on many teachers, and a unilateral restructuring of vocational colleges. The mission is not dealing with this dispute (the trade unions submitted a complaint before another ILO body: the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA)). Nevertheless, this dispute and its particular details including decisions and laws which were not subject to consultation, and measures against teachers’ colleges, and their leaders and members, have dramatically degraded the climate of confidence between the trade unions and the Government.

A contributory factor to the deterioration of confidence stated by the trade unions and the COHEP is the adoption of laws on labour issues affecting the interests of employers and workers which were not subject to consultation or at least not to genuine consultation (such as the Act on employment paid by the hour, and the Act of the National Pension Institute for Teachers). The trade unions and the COHEP also rightly deplore the fact that the National Congress amended the content of bipartite (between the trade unions and the COHEP) and tripartite agreements in certain Acts. The mission pointed out this problem to the President of the National Congress who was very receptive to the mission’s comments and understood the utmost importance of respecting tripartite agreements when they require ratification by the National Congress in order to be incorporated into legislation. The mission nevertheless recommended that the members of the Labour Commission of the National Congress and the honourable members in general should be made aware of the importance of this principle.

The mission recalls that the pending issues affect the exercise of fundamental labour rights and highlights that the legal reforms requested by the CEACR should be carried out as rapidly as possible, following an in-depth tripartite discussion which should necessarily be held within the CES. Subsequently, various partners indicated to the mission that a preliminary draft bill on the Code of Labour Procedure could contribute to speedier and more effective justice and thereby to increased protection against infringements of the Labour Code. The mission hopes that this text will be submitted to the CES.

The mission welcomes the commitment of the COHEP to social dialogue and collective bargaining which corresponds with a long tradition of consultation, and is a commitment shared by the trade unions.

The mission emphasizes that the COHEP and the trade unions urged that in the CES: (1) the governmental sector is represented by authorities of the highest level; (2) adequate funding is provided in order to meet the technical expectations that their functions entail; (3) the ILO provides assistance to the CES technical section; and (4) it is ensured that the CES meets monthly or as frequently as necessary. The mission notes with interest that the Government agrees with these points and also agrees that, as the social partners hoped, the members of the National Congress shall be involved in the final stages of the consultation process in order to ensure respect of the tripartite agreements.

The mission notes the Government’s comments that no areas for any employment and economic development zones (ZEDE) have been determined and therefore the terms for self-regulation regarding labour and procedures have not been determined either. The mission suggests that the CEACR should follow up this issue and considers that the Government should provide the CEACR with information on developments of union rights in those areas.

In addition, the trade unions report a high level of corruption in labour inspection and, as discussed with various authorities, the mission suggests that an ILO audit should be carried out which includes a technical diagnosis of the functioning of labour inspection and also handles complaints of corruption, with a view to taking relevant corrective measures.

The mission expresses the firm hope that the measures mentioned in these conclusions will be written into a roadmap and an action plan which adequately set out the intermediate targets and stages in order to make tangible progress, in line with the CEACR comments.

The Committee notes the Government’s indications in its report that: (i) the CES adopted the roadmap for discussion of the proposal on the harmonization of the Labour Code taking into account the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the technical advice of the ILO; this proposal also includes the question of the right of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively; (ii) since 2010, the Office of the Public Prosecutor has not received any complaints concerning discrimination (for anti-union harassment), but the National Human Rights Commissioner (CNDH) has examined nine complaints and the General Labour Inspectorate has handled three, two of which refer to the non-deduction of trade union dues; and (iii) the employment and economic development zones (ZEDE) (Organic Act of 12 June 2013) have not been created and no substantial progress has been made.

The Committee recalls that the issues in question relate to fundamental rights and pose no technical difficulties, and therefore – taking into account that according to the statement in the mission’s report that “both the Government and the social partners share the objective of bringing the national legislation fully into line with Conventions Nos 87 and 98” – it is incumbent on the authorities to take all necessary measures so that together with the most representative workers’ organizations it fulfils the recommendations of the 2013 Committee on the Application of Standards and introduces the requested reforms into the legislation. The Committee notes that the CES roadmap sets out the discussion and adoption of the legal reforms by the National Congress in September 2014 and, given the delay, urges the Government to take all necessary measures to that end and expresses the firm hope that concrete progress will be noted in the near future, bearing in mind the far-reaching importance of the pending legislative questions.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the exercise of union rights in the export processing zones (which must not be confused with the ZEDE, which the Government indicates have not been created) and more specifically on complaints of violations of union rights enshrined in the Convention, and the number and coverage by sector of collective agreements.

Lastly, the Committee notes with concern the complaints of a high level of corruption within the labour inspectorate and notes that the Government reacted positively to the suggestion of the direct contacts mission that an ILO audit be conducted. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard, in particular relating to cases of corruption connected to the exercise of union rights.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Comments by workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 30 August 2013, which refer to pending legislative issues and allegations concerning:

(i) anti-union action in various enterprises in the country. In this respect, the Government indicates that in one of the cases denounced, the regional labour office did not find any threat or harassment of the members of the union, while in another case the labour inspectorate reported the illegal dismissal of members of the union, and the administrative procedure for the imposition of the corresponding fines is being applied;

(ii) violation of collective agreements. In this regard, the Government indicates that the Regional Labour Office of San Pedro Sula notified the enterprise of the violations identified and that the procedure for the application of the penalty is ongoing;

(iii) obstacles to collective bargaining. With regard to the case referred to by the ITUC, the Government indicates that the negotiation is at the mediation stage with a facilitator from the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, June 2013)

The Committee notes the discussion on the application of the Convention by the Committee on the Application of Standards at the Conference in June 2013, in which emphasis was placed on the importance of the draft legislative reforms presented by the Government being subject to consultation with the social partners and being submitted in the near future to the legislative authorities, and during which the Government was requested to accept a direct contacts mission to ensure the full application of the Convention in law and practice. The Committee notes that the Government accepted the organization of the mission, which is planned from 21 to 25 April 2014.

Legislative matters. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that for many years its comments have referred to:

• – The lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties provided for in section 469 of the Labour Code are obviously insufficient and merely symbolic. The Committee notes the proposed amendment to section 469 presented by the Government, under the terms of which acts which violate the right to freedom of association would be punished by a fine of between five and 20 minimum wages, increased by 50 per cent in the event of repeated offences. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the direct contacts mission will be able to note tangible progress in the adoption of this amendment. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it requested the Government to indicate specific cases in which section 321 of Decree No. 191-96 of 31 October 1996 (establishing penal sanctions for discrimination) has been applied in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that since 2010 the Office of the Public Prosecutor has not received any complaints concerning the offence of discrimination against trade unions, but that over the same period the National Human Rights Commissioner (CNDH) examined 11 complaints of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information in its next report on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination received by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, the CNDH and the labour inspectorate, and the outcome of the respective procedures.
• – The absence of full and adequate protection against any acts of interference, and sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties against such acts. The Committee notes the proposed amendment to section 511 of the Labour Code, presented by the Government under the terms of which a list is established of persons who, in view of their links to the employer, cannot have access to trade union functions, with the election of such persons being declared void and a penalty for interference by employers being established in such cases of between five and 20 minimum wages. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, remedies and penalties against acts of interference by employers with workers’ organizations have to include acts designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. In this respect, the Committee observes that the proposed amendment to section 511 only addresses a part of the acts of interference envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention and once again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation with a view to covering all the acts of interference envisaged in the Convention.

Article 6. Right of collective bargaining of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. In its previous comments, with a view to ensuring that public employees who are not engaged in the administration of the State benefit from the guarantees afforded by the Convention, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code, which provide that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or conclude collective agreements. The Committee notes the proposed amendments to these sections presented by the Government under which unions of public employees would be able to submit lists of claims, and unions of public officials would have the same functions as other workers’ unions and their lists of claims would be dealt with in the same way as those of other workers, even when they cannot call or carry out a strike. The Committee expresses the firm hope that consultations on this proposed amendment will be held with the social partners and that the direct contacts mission will be able to note tangible progress in the reform of the legislation to the effect that public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State, whether they are public employees or public officials, are able to benefit from the right to collective bargaining.

Adoption of the Basic Act on Employment and Economic Development Zones (ZEDE). The Committee notes the Basic Act on ZEDEs (Decree No. 120-2013 of 12 June 2013), under the terms of which ZEDEs are authorized to adopt their own policies and standards (section 1) and will have autonomous and independent tribunals with exclusive competence in ZEDEs (section 3). It also notes section 35 of the Act, under which ZEDEs are required to guarantee the labour rights of workers within the parameters established by international treaties on labour matters concluded by Honduras, as well as the provisions adopted by international organizations, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO). The Committee further notes that ZEDEs are authorized to adopt their own standards to guarantee labour protection and freedom of association (section 33), and that they are required to used mediation, conciliation and arbitration for the peaceful settlement of labour disputes (section 35). With a view to ensuring that the provisions of the Convention are applied effectively throughout the country, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the standards adopted by ZEDEs respecting the right to organize and collective bargaining.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Comments from workers’ and employers’ organizations

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of 31 July 2009, 2011 and 2012 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) referring to pending legislative matters and to: (1) The framing of a bill which could result in collective bargaining being authorized only for unions that represent more than 50 per cent of all employees in the enterprise. In this regard, the Government indicates that there is no record of such a bill having been submitted to parliament. (2) The creation of parallel unions by employers. The Government indicates in this regard that the competent bodies have received no formal complaints about the establishment of such organizations. (3) Anti-union practices in the export processing zones and various enterprises in the cement and bakery sectors, slow proceedings dealing with complaints of anti-union practices and non-compliance with court orders to reinstate trade unionists. The Government states in this regard that, through the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, it will seek to have these items put on the Economic and Social Council’s agenda. (4) Cases of anti-union dismissals. In this respect, the Government indicates that investigations are under way in the course of the General Labour Inspectorate’s work, and that court proceedings have been initiated, and in one case a trade unionist was reinstated.

Legislative matters. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection from acts of discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that for many years it has referred in its comments to:

• -The lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties provided for in section 469 of the Labour Code for persons who interfere with the right to freedom of association range from 200 to 10,000 lempiras (200 lempiras being roughly equivalent to US$12) are obviously insufficient and a mere token. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government reiterates that protection against any act of discrimination that undermines freedom of association in the sphere of employment is guaranteed by the provisions of: (1) article 128(14) of the Constitution of the Republic, which confers the right to freedom of association on employers and workers alike; (2) section 517 of the Labour Code, which grants special state protection to workers when they notify to their employers their intention of forming a union and which provides that, from the date of such notification until receipt of the notice of legal personality, none of the notifying workers may be dismissed or transferred or suffer any impairment of their working conditions without due cause, as defined previously by the competent authority; and (3) the provisions of the Code that impose the penalties indicated by the Committee. The Committee again asks the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to amend the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code so as to make them dissuasive. The Committee further recalls that in its previous observation, it asked the Government to indicate specific cases in which section 321 of Decree No. 191-96 of 31 October 1996 (establishing penal sanctions for discrimination) has been used to apply sanctions for acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security sought information on the matter from the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Republic and is awaiting a reply in order to report back to the Committee. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide this information in its next report.
• -The absence of full and appropriate protection against all acts of interference, and sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties against such acts. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the legislation does contain provisions to afford workers’ organizations adequate protection against all acts of interference by employers, a case in point being section 511 of the Labour Code, which bars from membership of executive committees of enterprise unions or first-level unions or from appointment to trade union office members who, on account of their duties in the enterprise, represent the employer or hold management posts or positions of trust or who are able easily to exercise undue pressure on their colleagues. The Committee recalls in this connection that the protection of Article 2 of the Convention is broader than that afforded by section 511 of the Labour Code and that in order to ensure that effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention in practice, the legislation must make express provision for sufficiently dissuasive remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations, including against measures that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps to these ends.

Article 6. Right of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively. In its previous comments the Committee pointed out that, although Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from the Convention’s coverage, other categories of workers must be able to enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention and thus bargain collectively for their conditions of employment, including pay. The Committee asked the Government to take the necessary steps to amend sections 534 and 536 of the Labour Code barring unions of public employees from submitting lists of claims or signing collective agreements. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has sent no information on this matter. The Committee again asks the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the legislation to take account to the abovementioned principle.

The Committee notes that the Government states that it will take steps to align the labour legislation with ratified Conventions, in the framework of the Economic and Social Council, with support from the ILO. The Committee trusts that all the issues it has highlighted will be taken into account, and asks the Government to provide information on any measures adopted in its next report.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 102nd Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Comments from workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee notes the comments of 4 August 2011 by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), referring to pending legislative issues already raised, and in particular the lengthy procedures to secure the reinstatement of workers dismissed for carrying out trade union activities. The Committee, underlining the seriousness of these issues, requests the Government to send its observations thereon and on the ITUC’s comments of 2009 regarding the preparation of a draft Act which might result in collective bargaining being permitted only for unions that represent more than 50 per cent of the total number of employees in the enterprise, as well as the allegations of: (1) anti-union practices in the export processing zones and in various enterprises in the cement and bakery industries; (2) the slow judicial proceedings in cases of anti-union practices; (3) failure to comply with court orders to reinstate trade unionists and (4) the setting up of parallel organizations by employers.

The Committee also notes the comments from the General Confederation of Workers (CGT), the Single Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CUTH) and the Confederation of Workers of Honduras (CTH), dated 30 March and 22 August 2011, objecting to Decree No. 230-2010 setting out the national programme of hourly employment, which, in the view of these organizations, has a negative impact on freedom of association, collective bargaining, employment, wages and weekly rest. The Committee further notes the comments of 30 September 2011 by the CUTH on the application of the Convention. Lastly, the Committee notes the Government’s reply to these comments by communications dated 9 and 22 November 2011.

In addition, the Committee recalls that the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) submitted comments on the application of the Convention in 2009. The Committee requests once again the Government to send its observations thereon.

Legislative issues. Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of discrimination and interference. The Committee points out that for many years it has referred in its comments to:

• – the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code for persons who interfere with the right to freedom of association, ranging from 200 to 10,000 lempiras (200 lempiras being roughly equivalent to US$12), are clearly inadequate and a mere token. The Committee notes that in its report the Government states that protection against any act of discrimination liable to undermine freedom of association in the sphere of employment is guaranteed by the provisions of: (1) article 128(14) of the Constitution of the Republic, which confers the right to freedom of association both on employers and on workers; (2) section 517 of the Labour Code, which grants special state protection to workers when they notify to their employers their intention of forming a union and which provides that, from the date of such notification and until receipt of the notice of legal personality, none of the notifying workers may be dismissed or transferred or suffer any impairment of their working conditions without due cause as defined previously by the competent authority; and (3) by the provisions of the Code that impose the penalties indicated by the Committee. The Committee recalls that in its previous observation it noted that section 321 of Decree No. 191-96 of 31 October 1996 establishes penalties for cases of discrimination, but it has received no reply. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate specific cases in which this provision has been used to impose penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination. It makes this request because, where criminal law sets evidentiary requirements that are demanding, this often results in the non-application of penalties in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend the penalties laid down in section 469 of the Labour Code so as to make them dissuasive; and
• – the lack of adequate and full protection against all acts of interference, and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee notes that in reply the Government’s states that the legislation does contain provisions to provide workers’ organizations with adequate protection against all acts of interference by employers, citing as an example section 511 of the Labour Code which bars from membership of executive committees of enterprise unions or first-level unions or from appointment to trade union office members who, on account of their duties in the enterprise, represent the employer or hold management posts or positions of trust or who are able easily to exercise undue pressure on their colleagues. The Committee points out in this connection that the protection afforded by Article 2 of the Convention is broader than that of section 511 of the Labour Code and that, in order to ensure that effect is given to Article 2 of the Convention in practice, the legislation must make express provision for sufficiently dissuasive remedies and sanctions against acts of interference by employers against workers and their organizations. The Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps in this regard.

Article 6. Right of public servants who are not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively. The Committee noted in its previous comments the Government’s statement that public servants have duties that are limited by law (section 534 of the Labour Code), including the right to submit “respectful statements” containing requests of interest to all members in general, and that section 536 of the Code states that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or sign collective agreements but that other official workers’ unions are on a par with any others in terms of powers and the filing of claims. The Committee again points out that a system in which public employees may only submit to the authorities “respectful statements” which shall not be the subject of any negotiation, particularly with regard to conditions of employment, is not consistent with the Convention. It points out that, although Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from the Convention’s scope, other categories of workers must be able to enjoy the guarantees laid down in the Convention and hence to undertake collective bargaining for their conditions of employment, including pay. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to amend the legislation to take account of the abovementioned principles.

Lastly, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that: (1) in order for the Convention to be applied effectively, the country needs to devise and implement a national strategy for the promotion and dissemination of the rights laid down in the Convention, so as to advocate respect for fundamental principles; (2) improved dialogue between the main players in industrial relations is of vital importance to reaching the necessary agreements for harmonizing the national legislation with the standards of the Convention; and (3) the Secretariat of State for Labour and Social Security has been holding workshops and producing handbooks on collective bargaining techniques for workers belonging to trade unions and the public at large in order to promote collective bargaining and freedom of association. The Committee emphasizes in this connection that the problems referred to have persisted for many years and suggests to the Government that it seek technical assistance from the Office in aligning its legislation with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of discrimination and interference. The Committee recalls that its comments have referred for many years to:

–      the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties provided for in section 469 of the Labour Code for persons who interfere with the right to freedom of association, ranging from 200 to 10,000 lempiras (HNL) (200 lempiras being roughly equivalent to US$12), were deemed inadequate. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section 321 of Decree No. 191-96 of 31 October 1996 establishes penalties for cases of discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to indicate specific cases in which this provision has been used to impose penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination; and

–      the lack of adequate and full protection against any acts of interference, and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions for such acts. The Committee notes the comments from the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) of 22 May 2008, according to which the Secretariat of State decided, by means of a decision of 2 July 2002, to prohibit any opposition by employers to the recognition and registration of the legal personality of workers’ organizations, or from workers with regard to employers’ organizations, in order to guarantee adequate protection against acts of interference.

The Committee notes that the Government, in reply to the comments from the ITUC of 28 August 2005 concerning the dismissal of numerous trade union officials and members following the founding of a trade union, indicates that the mass dismissal of the members of a union executive committee is a rare and isolated measure and has not been the subject of complaints to the competent institutions. The Government adds that there have been no legislative amendments in connection with the application of the Convention which relate to anti-union discrimination and interference. The Government points out that it has been impossible to hold discussions on the reform of the Labour Code because of the strong opposition of the three major workers’ federations operating in the country. The Government adds that the Directorate of Labour of the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security has held various training workshops in the major cities of the country for leaders of workers’ organizations, aimed at informing and educating them with regard to the legal framework for collective bargaining. This body also undertakes activities to promote and disseminate the rights contained in the Convention through the publication of a “Guide to the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining”, and also flyers and leaflets on the exercise of those rights. The Committee recalls that the Government has the responsibility to ensure the application of freely ratified international labour Conventions relating to freedom of association. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to include provisions in the national legislation for adequate and full protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination or interference, establishing sufficiently effective and dissuasive penalties for such acts.

The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the observation from the ITUC dated 26 August 2009 concerning alleged anti-union practices in export processing zones, delays in the administration of justice in cases of anti-union practices (the Government indicates the possibility of a summary judgement in cases of unfair dismissals but the Committee considers that more information is needed), failure to comply with court orders for the reinstatement of trade unionists (according to the Government, reinstatement is only requested by the worker in isolated cases in practice) and the creation of parallel trade unions by employers (the Government merely states that these are not specific allegations). The Committee requests the Government to hold tripartite discussions on this matter and keep it informed in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee also notes the new comments from the ITUC dated 26 August 2009 which refer to the application of the Convention and, in particular, the drawing up of a draft Act which could limit collective bargaining only to unions which represent more than 50 per cent of the total number of employees in the enterprise, the setting up of parallel organizations by employers with which they undertake collective bargaining, and numerous anti-union dismissals in various enterprises in the export processing (maquila), cement and bakery industries. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

Article 6. Right of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State to bargain collectively. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments from the ITUC dated 28 August 2007 (many of them similar to those sent in previous years), alleging that public employees are forbidden to sign collective labour agreements. The Government points out that public officials have legally imposed limits on their duties (section 534 of the Labour Code), including the right to submit “respectful statements” containing requests of interest to all members in general. Section 536 states that unions of public employees may not submit lists of claims or sign collective agreements, but other official workers’ unions have the same powers as any others to deal with claims on equal terms. The Government refers to a number of state enterprises and municipalities with high population density which have signed collective agreements and points out that official workers do have the right to collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that a system in which public employees may only submit to the authorities “respectful statements” which will not be the subject of any negotiation, particularly with regard to conditions of employment, is not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee recalls that, even though Article 6 of the Convention allows public servants engaged in the administration of the State to be excluded from its scope of application, other categories of workers must be able to enjoy the guarantees provided for by the Convention, and therefore be able to undertake collective bargaining with respect to their conditions of employment, including pay. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to guarantee the full application of the Convention.

The Committee reminds the Government that the problems referred to above have persisted for many years and that it can seek technical assistance from the Office.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the comments made by the COHEP dated 6 October 2009 (including information on protection against anti-union dismissals in the public sector and the corresponding legislation).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments of 10 August 2006 from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation), which referred mainly to issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice which have already been examined, as well as the failure to comply with a collective agreement in the mining sector. With regard to the latter issue, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Secretariat of Labour and Social Security has not received any complaint in this respect. Nevertheless, the Secretariat is engaged in a procedure relating to other complaints against the mining company concerned.

The Committee recalls that it has been referring for many years in its comments to:

–           the lack of adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, since the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code for persons who prejudice the right to freedom of association range between 200 and 10,000 lempiras (200 lempiras being equivalent to around US$12), which were deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation; and

–           the lack of adequate and full protection against any acts of interference, and of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions for such acts. Article 2 of the Convention provides for protection for workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other (or their agents), with particular reference to acts that are intended to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. This protection is considerably broader than that envisaged in section 511 of the Labour Code, which is confined to providing that members of a union whose tasks entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust, or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues, may not hold trade union office.

In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its observation of 2005 it noted the preparation of a draft reform of the Labour Code incorporating a number of the amendments requested by the Committee, which had been preceded by a tripartite study. The Committee notes that in its report the Government reiterates its commitment to considerably strengthening tripartite dialogue as a tool for social and equitable development with a view to improving the labour legislation, with particular reference to section 469 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that it is more effective and thereby guarantees respect for the freedom to organize and to engage in collective bargaining. The Government retains the firm hope that the Economic and Social Council, which serves as a concerted social dialogue body, will serve as the forum in which all matters relating to the necessary and urgent reforms of the labour legislation will be analysed and discussed with a view to harmonizing it with ratified ILO Conventions.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that in the near future the Government will take the necessary measures to include in the national legislation adequate and full protection against any acts of anti-union discrimination or interference and will establish sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee reminds the Government that the Office’s technical assistance is at its disposal.

Finally, the Committee notes the communication dated 28 August 2007 from the ITUC which refers to pending issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention. Furthermore, according to the ITUC, public employees are prohibited from concluding collective labour agreements, the Labour Code restricts the matters which may be covered by bargaining and empowers the Ministry of Labour to approve the content of a collective agreement. The ITUC also refers to the dismissal of numerous trade union leaders and members following the establishment of a trade union. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments on these matters.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), dated 10 August 2006, referring largely to matters relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice which have already been examined. The ICFTU also alleges failure to comply with a collective agreement in the mining sector.

The Committee requests the Government, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, to provide its observations for the Committee’s next session in November-December 2007 on the ICFTU’s comments and on the other issues relating to the legislation and the application of the Convention in practice raised in its previous observation in 2005 (see the 2005 observation, 76th Session).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report and notes with interest that a draft reform of the Labour Code has been prepared and incorporates a number of the amendments the Committee has been requesting for many years. It also notes that a tripartite study was conducted before the reform was drafted.

The Committee has been commenting for several years on:

1. Inadequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had requested the Government to make provision in the legislation, which already prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination, for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts, since the penalties established in section 469 of the Labour Code for impairment of the right to freedom of association (from 200 to 10,000 lempiras, 200 lempiras being equivalent to around US$12) had been deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation. The Committee once again expresses the hope that the draft legislation will be adopted in the near future and will provide for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on this matter in its next report.

2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes that the Government again indicates in its report that pursuant to section 511 of the Labour Code, members of the union whose tasks entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust, or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues, may not hold trade union office. The Committee points out in this connection that Article 2 of the Convention provides for broader protection for employers’ and workers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other (or their agents) and treats as acts of interference, among others, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee again expresses the hope that the draft legislation will be adopted in the near future and will include provisions designed to prohibit and afford full and adequate protection against all acts of inference, together with sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measures adopted to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Inadequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to ensure that the legislation, which already prohibits acts of anti-union discrimination, sets forth sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee noted in its previous observation that, according to the Government, as the penalties envisaged in section 469 of the Labour Code against persons impairing the right to freedom of association (from 200 to 2,000 lempiras, with 200 lempiras being equivalent to around $12) had been deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation, a process of tripartite dialogue would be initiated to discuss reforms of the labour legislation to adapt it to the needs of the social partners. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s statement in its report that, although it has forwarded the observations of the Committee of Experts to employers’ and workers’ organizations for their opinions, it has not received any reply from them. The Government adds that examination of labour law reforms is envisaged in the strategic agenda of the tripartite dialogue and consultation body and, in particular, the Economic and Social Council. The Committee once again hopes that the outcome of the tripartite discussions on labour law reform will be the preparation of a Bill in the near future providing for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this matter in its next report. The Committee also reminds the Government that it can seek the Office’s technical assistance in drafting the above Bill.

2. Protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that, under the terms of section 511 of the Labour Code, members of a union whose tasks entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust, or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues, may not hold trade union office. In this respect, the Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention provides for broader protection for workers’ and employers’ organizations against any acts of interference by each other (or their agents) and considers as acts of interference, in particular, acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. In this respect, the Committee once again hopes that, in the context of the process of dialogue for the labour law reform, provisions will be included, designed to prohibit and afford full and adequate protection against any acts of interference, as well as sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on any measure adopted to this end.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that it has been referring for years to the need for the legislation to provide for adequate protection, particularly sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions, against acts of anti-union discrimination for trade union membership or activities and against acts of interference by employers or their organization in trade union affairs.

With regard to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that, according to the Government: (1) section 469 of the Labour Code, amended by Decree No. 978 of 1980, punishes the impairment of freedom of association by a fine of from 200 to 10,000 lempiras (200 lempiras = approximately US$12) but, these provisions having been deemed inadequate by one workers’ confederation, tripartite consultation has been initiated in order to discuss the reform of the labour legislation to align it with the needs of the social partners; this should lead to a bill being submitted to the National Congress of the Republic; (2) section 517 of the Labour Code provides for protection against dismissal, transfer or the downgrading of working conditions without just cause established by the respective authority for workers who notify to the employer and the General Directorate of Labour their intention to organize a trade union, such protection lasting only until the trade union obtains legal personality (prior authorization from the judicial authority is required in order to dismiss workers covered by this special immunity). The Committee hopes that the outcome of the tripartite discussions on labour law reform will be a bill providing for sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against all acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee hopes that such a bill will be prepared in the near future and asks the Government to inform it in this respect in its next report. The Committee also reminds the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the Office in drafting the bill in question.

With regard to protection against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs, the Committee notes from the information supplied by the Government that section 511 of the Labour Code excludes from eligibility for trade union office those members of the union whose duties entail representing the employer or who hold positions of management or personal trust or who are easily able to exert undue pressure on their colleagues. The Committee recalls in this connection that acts to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means are included among the acts of interference referred to in Article 2 of the Convention. Noting that the Government is planning a reform of the labour legislation with regard to protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee hopes that the reform will include provisions designed to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations enjoy proper protection against acts of interference by each other, and that there are sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee asks the Government to inform it of any measures adopted to this end in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report. It also notes the comments submitted by the Single Confederation of Honduran Workers (CUTH) with regard to application of the Convention.

The Committee recalls that for years it has referred to the need for legislation to provide sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs. The Committee also recalls that in its previous comments it took note of a preliminary draft reforming the Labour Code of December 1995 which strengthens measures and sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government makes no reference to this preliminary draft in its report; rather, it refers only to the Labour Code amended by Decree No. 978 of 1980 which provides sanctions against persons who hinder the full right to freedom of association. The Committee notes that the CUTH states that legislation does not provide sanctions to punish employers who violate the rights set out in the Convention. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to supply information on the application in practice of the provisions of the Labour Code which sanctions acts of discrimination and interference and to texts of administrative and judicial decisions on this matter.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

The Committee recalls its previous comments which referred to the need for the legislation to provide sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union affairs. In this respect, the Committee had noted that a draft text to amend the Labour Code of December 1996 strengthened the measures and sanctions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and/or interference, with fines ranging from 30 to 100 times the highest statutory minimum monthly wage (section 390 of the draft text).

The Committee notes that the Government refers to the draft text of the above Labour Code and indicates that the reform measures have not been completed by the social partners.

In these conditions, the Committee hopes that in the very near future the necessary legislative amendments will be adopted. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any measures adopted in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code will contain sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters.

In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that the preliminary draft reform of the Labour Code of December 1996 has strengthened measures and sanctions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and/or of interference, with fines of 30 to 100 times the highest legal monthly minimum salary (section 390 of the preliminary draft). The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the Labour Code once it has been approved.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee also asked the Government to send it detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and on any rules applying in the event of collective disputes.

In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the provisions of the Labour Code mentioned by the Government under which employees in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises have the right to collective bargaining on the same terms as other workers (sections 53, 72 and 536), as well as of the legislation applicable in the event of collective disputes. It requests the Government to send it specific information on any collective labour agreement which has been concluded recently by workers and their organizations in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code will contain sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters.

In this respect, the Committee notes with interest that the preliminary draft reform of the Labour Code of December 1996 has strengthened measures and sanctions to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination and/or of interference, with fines of 30 to 100 times the highest legal monthly minimum salary (section 390 of the preliminary draft). The Committee requests the Government to send it a copy of the Labour Code once it has been approved.

Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention. The Committee also asked the Government to send it detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and on any rules applying in the event of collective disputes.

In this respect, the Committee takes due note of the provisions of the Labour Code mentioned by the Government under which employees in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises have the right to collective bargaining on the same terms as other workers (sections 53, 72 and 536), as well as of the legislation applicable in the event of collective disputes. It requests the Government to send it specific information on any collective labour agreement which has been concluded recently by workers and their organizations in public or semi-public institutions or enterprises.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report and observes that it has not answered the questions raised in its previous direct request.

The Committee again asks the Government to send detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and any applicable rules in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code is to contain provisions on the existence of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during employment against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters (Articles 1 and 2).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the new authorities have submitted the draft reform of the Labour Code to the competent authority, but observes that it has not answered the questions raised in its previous direct request.

The Committee again asks the Government to send detailed information on the legislation conferring the right to collective bargaining on workers in the public sector other than those who are engaged in the administration of the State, and any rules applying in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the draft reform of the Labour Code is to contain provisions on the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during employment, protection for workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations in trade union matters, and the existence of sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions for such acts (Articles 1 and 2).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee regrets that the Government has confined itself to transmitting a copy of its report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988 and has not examined the comments that the Committee made in its March 1989 Session. The Commmittee is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request, and in particular that the Labour Code (Title II, Chapter IV) is the law applicable to all sectors, including the public sector, with regard to the right to bargain collectively. The Government supplies a list of 28 public sector institutions (with the exception of ministries and comparable bodies) where collective agreements have been concluded. With regard to public servants employed in ministries, the Government points out that, in accordance with section 534 of the Labour Code, they have the right to unionize, with certain restrictions.

The Committee requests the Government to supply details on the legislation which grants the right to bargain collectively to workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State and on the standards that are applicable in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

Articles 1 and 2. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which provisions guarantee protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, and protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference in union matters by employers and employers' organizations and to indicate whether there exist sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee regrets that the Government has confined itself to transmitting a copy of its report for the period between 30 June 1987 and 30 June 1988 and has not examined the comments that the Committee made in its March 1989 Session. The Commmittee is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request, and in particular that the Labour Code (Title II, Chapter IV) is the law applicable to all sectors, including the public sector, with regard to the right to bargain collectively. The Government supplies a list of 28 public sector institutions (with the exception of ministries and comparable bodies) where collective agreements have been concluded. With regard to public servants employed in ministries, the Government points out that, in accordance with section 534 of the Labour Code, they have the right to unionise, with certain restrictions.

The Committee requests the Government to supply details on the legislation which grants the right to bargain collectively to workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State and on the standards that are applicable in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

Articles 1 and 2. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which provisions guarantee protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, and protection of workers' organisations against acts of interference in union matters by employers and employers' organisations and to indicate whether there exist sufficiently effective and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request, and in particular that the Labour Code (Title II, Chapter IV) is the law applicable to all sectors, including the public sector, with regard to the right to bargain collectively. The Government supplies a list of 28 public sector institutions (with the exception of ministries and comparable bodies) where collective agreements have been concluded. With regard to public servants employed in ministries, the Government points out that, in accordance with section 534 of the Labour Code, they have the right to unionise, with certain restrictions.

The Committee requests the Government to supply details on the legislation which grants the right to bargain collectively to workers in the public sector who are not engaged in the administration of the State, and on the standards that are applicable in the event of collective disputes (Articles 4 and 6 of the Convention).

Articles 1 and 2. The Committee asks the Government to indicate which provisions guarantee protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment and during the employment relationship, and protection of workers' organisations against acts of interference in union matters by employers and employers' organisations and to indicate the civil remedies and penal sanctions applicable.