Interim Report - Report No 117, 1970

Case No 601 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 08-JUL-69 - Closed

1. 54. The complaint is contained in a communication sent to the ILO by the Latin American Federation of Christian Trade Unions on 8 July 1969. The text was passed on to the Government, which sent its observations in a letter dated 12 August 1969.
2. 55. Colombia has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

• Allegations concerning the Dismissal of a Trade Union Leader
  56. 56 The complaint refers specifically to the dismissal of Mr. Rafael Herrera, Chairman of the National Workers' Union of the National Local Roads Fund. Mr. Herrera was dismissed by a resolution of the Manager of the Cundinamarca District Local Roads Fund, an autonomous official body. In the complainant's opinion this action was in breach of the laws which prohibit the dismissal of trade union leaders without prior authorisation from the labour magistrate. Moreover, authorities of the employing organisation are said to have spread rumours, both among the staff and the public, that Mr. Herrera had been guilty of abuse and disrespect towards the said authorities. The complainants also state that a provision was subsequently adopted whereby henceforward members of the national board of the trade union in question can obtain time off only from the authorities of the National Local Roads Fund, which in practice amounts to impeding and obstructing the trade union work of leaders who hold office at the national level but offer their service to the district funds.
  57. 57 In its observations the Government states that Mr. Herrera was dismissed for having left his work " possibly to devote his time to trade union duties " but without fulfilling the legal requirements. In accordance with the Labour Code (section 57, clause 6), employers are obliged to grant workers time off to carry out trade union work, provided the workers in question give due notice to the employers or their representatives. The Government states that the worker concerned did not request the necessary time off in order to leave his post lawfully, although his employer would have been obliged to grant it. As regards the requirement of prior authorisation from the magistrate for the purpose of dismissal, the Government refers to section 409 of the above-mentioned Labour Code which provides that " persons who are public employees within the meaning of section 5 of the Code of Political and Municipal Rights " shall not enjoy trade union immunity. In this case the person concerned was a public employee working for a district.
  58. 58 The Government further points out that Mr. Herrera has lodged an appeal with the ordinary labour court, " which will rule whether or not his dismissal contravenes the labour laws ".
  59. 59 The Committee has always stressed the importance it attaches to the widely recognised principle that workers must enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment and that such protection must apply particularly in respect of any act calculated to cause the dismissal of a worker or otherwise prejudice him by reason of his union membership or his participation in trade union activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours. This principle is contained in Article 1 of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
  60. 60 In the present case, as regards the dismissal of the Chairman of the National Workers' Union of the National Local Roads Fund, it does not appear from the Government's observations that the only reason for this measure was that the person concerned had taken time off from work without having sought permission in accordance with the legal requirements. The Government stresses that the law also obliges employers to grant time off for the performance of trade union duties. As regards the guarantee laid down in the national legislation for the benefit of trade union leaders, to the effect that they cannot be dismissed from their employment without prior authorisation from the magistrate, the Government points out that under a specific provision of the law public employees-to which category the person concerned belongs-do not enjoy this guarantee.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 61. The Committee takes note of the Government's observations and of the fact that legal action is being taken in respect of the case. In the past it has been the Committee's constant practice, when a matter is the subject of pending national judicial proceedings, provided these proceedings are attended by proper guarantees of due process of law, to postpone examination of the case until it knows the outcome of the proceedings, since it considers that the ruling given may be a source of useful information in considering the allegations made. The Committee considers it appropriate to apply the same criterion in this case.
2. 62. The other aspect of the complaint appears to refer to a change in the system whereby employers grant time off to the national leaders of the trade union organisation in question. It is alleged that although these leaders offer their services to units of the state body in the districts of the country, they must henceforward request such time off from the central authority of the employing body. The complainants confine themselves to stating that in practice the new system obstructs the performance of trade union duties.
3. 63. In a previous case, in which it had been alleged that a particular undertaking had ended an arrangement whereby trade union delegates had been allowed time off, the Committee expressed the opinion that, since such facilities were a considerable asset for the exercise of trade union rights, a substantial reduction of these facilities might have an adverse effect on the exercise of these rights, and recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government concerned to this aspect of the question.
4. 64. In the present case the right of trade union leaders after having notified their employers to take time off to carry out their trade union work is provided for in Colombian legislation and it may be assumed that any unjustified restriction of this right may be the subject of an appeal to a court or to some other body. It is not stated in the complaint whether the persons concerned have availed themselves of this possibility. Furthermore, the complainants have not made use of the opportunity afforded to them to furnish the Committee with sufficient evidence for it to judge to what extent the decision referred to impeded the exercise of trade union rights. In the circumstances the Committee considers that it would be pointless to pursue examination of this case.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 65. With regard to the case as a whole, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) for the reasons stated in paragraph 64 above, to decide that it would be pointless to pursue examination of the allegations concerning the system of granting time off to trade union leaders for the performance of trade union duties;
   • (b) as regards the allegations concerning the dismissal of the chairman of a trade union, to request the Government to supply detailed information on the outcome of the pending court appeal against this dismissal;
   • (c) to take note of the fact that the Committee will continue its examination of the latter aspect of the case when it has received the information requested from the Government.
     • Geneva, 25 February 1970. (Signed) Roberto AGO, Chairman.