Definitive Report - Report No 331, June 2003

Case No 2213 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 15-JUL-02 - Closed

Allegation: The complainants allege the dismissal of 20 workers affiliated to a trade union in the enterprise Sociedad Siderúrgica de Medellín S.A.

1. 283. The present complaint is contained in the communication of the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) and the National Trade Union of Metalworkers, Metallurgists, Steelworkers, Miners and Electrical and Electronic Workers (SINTRAMETAL) dated 15 July 2002.
2. 284. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 13 January 2003.
3. 285. Colombia has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. The complainants’ allegations

1. 286. In their communication of 15 July 2002, the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) and the National Trade Union of Metalworkers, Metallurgists, Steelworkers, Miners and Electrical and Electronic Workers (SINTRAMETAL) allege the dismissal of 20 workers at the Sociedad Siderúrgica de Medellín S.A. (SIMESA) enterprise in Medellín. The workers in question were members of SINTRAMETAL. The complainants also state that the enterprise applied to the Ministry of Labour for authorization to carry out the dismissals and claimed, in justification of the dismissals, that it was experiencing an economic crisis especially in the foundry section in which the dismissed workers were employed (the complainants indicate that the company had previously terminated the contracts of 250 workers as part of a voluntary retirement scheme, also as result of the economic crisis). The complainants allege that the Ministry issued resolution 039 of 5 May 1993 authorizing the dismissals, which constitutes an unequivocal act of interference in trade union activities. The complainants also indicate that each of the dismissed workers has on average 20 years of service to the company. They add that an appeal was lodged against the decision, which, however, was upheld by resolution No. 002794 of 23 June 1993.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 287. In its communication of 3 January 2003, the Government indicates that the administrative decisions to authorize the collective dismissal in the SIMESA enterprise in May 2003 were challenged by the workers and their trade union before the administrative disputes court and the Supreme Court of Justice, both of which upheld the collective dismissal on the grounds that it was in accordance with the law (the Government attaches copies of both rulings). The Government adds that in any case, given the separation of powers that is guaranteed under the country’s Political Constitution, the Government cannot interfere with court decisions.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 288. The Committee notes that the allegations refer to the dismissal of 20 workers who were members of the trade union at the SIMESA enterprise in May 1993 as part of a restructuring process. According to the complainants, authorization by the Ministry of Labour for such dismissals constitutes interference in the activities of the trade union.
2. 289. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the dismissals in question were authorized by the Ministry of Labour in a resolution which was challenged by the complainants before the administrative disputes court and the Supreme Court, and that both those courts upheld the collective dismissals. The Committee notes also that it is clear from the court rulings in question that the complainant did not allege a violation of freedom of association as grounds for its appeal, which was supported by different arguments. The Government notes that, according to the court rulings, the dismissals were the result of the closure of a foundry section which affected about 300 workers, of whom 250 accepted voluntary retirement with compensation. Under these circumstances the Committee concludes that the dismissals were general measures adopted for economic reasons and that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were anti-union in nature.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 290. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that the case does not require further examination.