Definitive Report - Report No 168, November 1977

Case No 719 (Colombia) - Complaint date: 19-AUG-72 - Closed

1. 90. This case was last examined by the Committee at its session in November 1975, when it submitted to the Governing Body interim conclusions contained in paragraphs 146 to 156 of its 153rd Report. This report was approved by the Governing Body at its 199th Session (November 1975).
2. 91. 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. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 92. It will be recalled that, according to the complainants, the Colombian National Airline Company (AVIANCA) had dismissed a number of trade union leaders for participating in a strike on 15 August 1972. The complainants also stated that a large number of workers had been dismissed for the same reason. The Government stated that the tension which existed between the unions and the AVIANCA undertaking had eased and that labour relations had become harmonious. In the light of this information, the Committee requested the Director-General, in May 1974, to ask the complainants for their observations regarding the statement made by the Government.
2. 93. The International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) had replied that the leaders of the Colombian Association of Aircraft Mechanics (ACMA) and the Association of Flight Auxiliaries (ACAV) had still not been reinstated in the jobs they had held before their dismissal. In particular, ITF mentioned the case of Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo, former president of the ACAV, and Jaime Torres Reinoso, former general secretary of that union. ITF added that the Minister of Labour had not yet intervened to bring about any results despite promises to do so. The two aforementioned persons had worked with the company for many years; they had never belonged to any political movement and had never given AVIANCA cause to complain about their work. According to ITF, the clear implication was that their dismissal had arisen solely as a result of their trade union activities. The complainants added, however, that they were glad to concede that there had been a marked improvement in the industrial relations situation within the company, which made it all the more regrettable that the question of reinstatement had not yet been resolved.
3. 94. In a later communication, the Government stated that Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo and Jaime Torres Reinoso had been dismissed in accordance with a resolution issued by the Minister of Labour whereby the strike mentioned above had been declared illegal. The matter was before the Labour Court.
4. 95. In its 153rd Report the Committee noted with interest that there had been a marked improvement in industrial relations at the AVIANCA company. It considered, however, that this situation could be further improved if the company would give serious consideration to the reinstatement, as far as possible, of the trade union leaders and the dismissed workers. It recommended the Governing Body to draw the attention of the Government to these considerations and to request the Government to transmit, as soon as they had been rendered, the judgements of the Labour Court in the cases concerning Messrs. Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo and Jaime Torres Reinoso.
5. 96. In communications of 23 March and 29 July 1976 the Government indicated that the proceedings which had been instituted were still before the Court. It further stated, in a letter of 19 April 1977, that on 21 March 1977 the Labour Court had ordered AVIANCA to reinstate Jaime Torres Reinoso and to pay him compensation amounting to 77 pesos and 91 centimos a day from 18 August 1972 up to the date of his reinstatement. The Government communicated the text of the sentence and stated that, in accordance with the law, the competent ministry had merely declared the strike illegal: whether or not they enjoyed immunity (fuero) on account of their trade union activities, the workers could be dismissed only by authorisation. Since this authorisation had not been given, the labour judge had passed the aforementioned sentence on the undertaking. The case of Mr. Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo was still pending, continued the Government, but it was hoped that the judgement would be rendered within the next few days. The Ministry of Labour did not intervene in judicial decisions, but attempted to prevent employers dismissing workers without authorisation, as in the present case. The appeal of Mr. Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo was based on the same argument as that of Mr. Jaime Torres Reinoso and it was therefore likely that he would be reinstated.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 97. The Committee notes this information with interest. Since, however, the dismissals took place in August 1972, it wishes to recall the importance which it attaches to the application of a rapid procedure for the examination of alleged cases of dismissal because of trade union activities.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 98. In these circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body:
   • (a) to take note of the judgement by which Mr. Jaime Torres Reinoso was reinstated in his employment;
   • (b) to request the Government to keep it informed of the results of the judicial proceedings concerning Mr. Alonso Cabanzo Cabanzo.