Interim Report - Report No 226, June 1983

Case No 1166 (Honduras) - Complaint date: 13-OCT-82 - Closed

1. 324. The World Confederation of Organisations of the Teaching Profession (WCOTP) presented its complaint in a communication dated 13 October 1982. It sent additional information in communications dated 29 December 1982 and 9 February 1983. The Government replied in a communication dated 9 March 1983.
2. 325. Honduras has ratified both 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 complainant's allegations

1. 326. In its communications dated 13 October and 29 December 1982, the complainant alleges that, following a strike called on 12 August by the organisations affiliated to the Honduran Teachers' Unity Front (FUMH) in connection with wage negotiations and a peaceful demonstration in front of a number of ministries and the presidential Palace, 300 teachers were dismissed (except for 20 who are still out of work, most were subsequently reinstated), salary deductions were made for the days the teachers were on strike, the schools were placed under military control and the dismissed teachers were replaced. The complainant adds that, although the teachers' organisations proposed various compromise solutions, the Government refused any increase in salary on the grounds of the country's economic situation and, specifically, the size of its foreign debt.
2. 327. The complainant points out that the Government based its action on section 536 of the Labour Code which provides that trade unions of civil servants are not permitted to strike; it considers, however, that teaching personnel are entitled to do so inasmuch as article 124, paragraph 13, of the Constitution states: "The right to strike or participate in a work stoppage is recognised. The law shall regulate its exercise and may subject it to special restrictions in specified public services".
3. 328. In its communication dated 9 February 1983, the complainant alleges that, during the opening session of the annual meeting of the College for the Advancement of the Honduran. Teaching Profession (COLPROSUMAH) on 12 December 1982, 25 persons broke into the meeting - they were subsequently excluded - and attempted to reverse the existing majority, to have the meeting cancelled and to persuade the delegates to join them. According to the complainant, the intruders were neither delegates of regional assemblies nor invested with any mandate by them but were COLPROSUMAH members close to the Ministry of Education and school directors who were accompanied by members of the police and public security force.
4. 329. The complainant adds that the 25 persons met on the same day in a nearby building belonging to the State, where they proceeded to elect a self-styled COLPROSUMAH committee, and that the record of the election mentions the names of delegates from various regional assemblies who deny having participated in the meeting. The 263 delegates to the annual meeting themselves elected, or rather re-elected, the legitimate COLPROSUMAH committee.
5. 330. In spite of this, during the annual meeting which was being held in Ocotepeque, members of the National Investigation Department, accompanied by members of the public security force, took over the headquarters of CGLPROSUMAH where there was only a watchman left. Since then the organisation's headquarters has been guarded by the police who have accused COLPROSUMAH of possessing subversive literature and will not allow the legitimate leaders of COLPROSUMAH to enter the premises even to retrieve their personal belongings. The complainant adds that, on 15 December 1982, a lawyer apparently representing the Supreme Court of justice handed over to the executive committee appointed by the 25 person referred to earlier all the fixed and moveable assets of COLPROSUMAH. The complainant points out that, in any case, the mandate of the former committee expired on 2 January 1983
6. 331. Finally, the complainant alleges that in July 1982 the police conducted a search of the COIPROMUSAH offices and held the organisation's leaders in custody for 24 hours because of a telephone call to Nicaragua; the authorities accuse the COLPROSUMAH leaders o£ demonstrating their sympathy and solidarity with their colleagues in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

B. The Government's reply

1. 332. In its communication dated 9 March 1983 the Government states that on 4 April 1982 the four teachers' colleges affiliated to the Honduran Teachers' Unity Front (FUMH) submitted to the Secretariat for Public Education a set of draft regulations for the Honduran teaching staff which, inter alia, defined the basic salary for teachers at the various levels of the education system and provided for the teachers' colleges to take over the running of national education.
2. 333. The Government points out that the proposed salary increase was more than 250 per cent above the existing level and was beyond the means of the Government. Moreover, articles 157 and 171 of the Honduran Constitution contain the following provisions:
   • Article 157. Education at every level of the formal educational system except higher education shall be authorised, organised, directed and supervised exclusively by the Executive power through the Secretariat for Public Education, which shall administer the system's education centres, the latter being wholly financed out of public funds.
   • Article 171. Officially dispensed education shall be free of charge; basic education shall, moreover, be compulsory and entirely financed by the State. The State shall establish enforcement machinery to ensure compliance with this provision.
3. 334. The Government adds that on 31 May 1982 the Secretariat for Public Education submitted to the FUME a set of draft regulations for teaching personnel which conform to the laws currently in force in the country. On 2 June 1982, the teachers nevertheless organised a public demonstration and ceased work, to the detriment of tae system of education. In an effort to find a just and equitable solution to the problem posed by the FUMH, the Government appointed a committee on 9 June 1982 to discuss the draft regulations for the teaching staff with another committee designated by the FUMH: however, in spite of the Government's manifest interest in the matter, during the course of discussions on the draft regulations the teachers ceased work to hold public demonstrations and, on 19 June 1982, when the aforementioned committees were still negotiating, went so far as to call a 48-hour national work stoppage.
4. 335. The Government states that a meeting was subsequently held at Government House which was attended by representatives of the FUMH and part of the Cabinet and at which the FUMH was informed that, for economic reasons, it was impossible for the Government to accede to its salary demands. The FUME responded the following day with a nation-wide work stoppage of 48 hours, whereupon the Government warned that deductions would be made from salaries for the days not worked and that more rigorous measures would be taken if the FUME persisted in its attitude. In spite of these warnings, the FUME leaders called a work stoppage of 72 hours on 2 August 1982 and, 8 days later, a further stoppage of 48 hours, regardless of the fact that such action by teachers is defined by articles 84 and 65 of the Regulations issued under the Teachers' Register Act as dereliction of duty and that the corresponding sanction provided for under article 79 is the dismissal of all those involved.
5. 336. The Government goes on to say that on 13 August 1982 the President of the Republic and the Cabinet held a meeting with members of the FUME executive committee in order to settle the matter. After several hours of dialogue during which it was explained that the economic situation of the country was such that it was impossible to meet their salary demands, the members of the executive committee called an indefinite work stoppage as from 16 August. In spite of this, the President expressed his desire to keep the dialogue open and to give priority to the request for a salary increase if and when the country's economic situation improved; this proposal was rejected by the FMUH leaders who maintained their work stoppage.
6. 337. In view of their intransigent attitude, the Government called upon the leaders of the FUME to give the matter further thought and to change their attitude and invited them to resume classes on 26 August 1982, with the warning that failure to do so would lead to cancellation of the appointments of any teachers who did not comply with the order issued by the Executive and that other teachers would be appointed to the vacancies thus created. The Government accordingly took this action and the situation remained unchanged until 28 August when the FUMH called upon the teachers to return to work on 30 August.
7. 338. In the Government's view, the foregoing shows that it exhausted every possible means within its scope to find a basis of agreement with the teaching sector but that all its efforts were in vain, owing to the intransigence shown by the teachers' leaders throughout the negotiations. The Government adds that there can be no doubt that it has treated the law-breaking teachers fairly, since their repeated offences (unauthorised absence from work, repeated acts of indiscipline, frequent and u justified dereliction of duty, failure to act with the sense of responsibility, decorum and dignity expected of their post) were such as to justify summary dismissal. The Government reiterates that, although the seriousness of their offence, which has been duly proved in this instance, rendered them liable to the said disciplinary action, it has reinstated almost 100 per cent of the dismissed teachers.
8. 339. In the Government's opinion, the complainant organisation's assertion that freedom of association is being infringed in Honduras is untrue since the teachers' organisations are considered not as trade unions but as occupational organisations; even in the event that they were to form a trade union, they would still be subject to certain restrictions imposed by national legislation, inasmuch as trade unions of public servants do not have the same rights and functions as are granted by law to other workers' trade union organisations. Specifically, they do not have the power vested in trade unions by section 492(4) of the Labour Code to call strikes in accordance with the law. On the contrary, section 536 of the Code makes the following provision with respect to trade unions of civil servants:
   • Article 536. No trade union of civil servants may submit claims or conclude collective agreements, but the trade unions of other persons employed by the State shall have all the powers of other workers' unions, and their claims shall be examined in the same way, even though they are not permitted to call or conduct a strike.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 340. The allegations in this case refer to measures taken and sanctions imposed by the authorities following the strike and protest action undertaken by the teachers' organisations from the beginning of June 1982 in response to the authorities' refusal to agree to salary increases; to the searching of the COLPROSUMAH's offices and holding of its leaders in custody for 24 hours; and to interference in COLPROSUMAH's general meeting in December 1982.
2. 341. With regard to the measures taken and sanctions imposed by the authorities because of the strike and protest action of the teachers' organisations (dismissal of 300 teachers, 20 of whom have not yet been reinstated, deductions from salary for days not worked, military control of schools and replacement of dismissed strikers), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the sanctions were imposed as a result of the intransigent attitude of the FUMH during and after the salary negotiations between the teachers" organisations and the authorities and, specifically, their rejection of the President's proposal to give priority to their request for a salary increase if the country's economic situation improved and the fact that they called a number of work stoppages and public demonstrations. The Committee notes that although under the legislation in, force the offences committed (unauthorised absence from work, repeated acts of indiscipline, etc.) were such as to justify the dismissal of those involved, almost 100 per cent of the dismissed teachers have been reinstated. The Committee also notes the complainant's statement that 20 teachers continue to be out of work and that the Government has refused any salary increase in spite of being offered various compromise solutions.
3. 342. The Committee observes that the principal grounds for the measures taken and sanctions imposed by the authorities are that the national legislation does not recognise the right to strike of public servants (including teachers) or of their organisations. The committee further observes that the teachers' organisations which organised the strikes and public demonstrations referred to in the allegations are workers' organisations in the sense of Article 10 of Convention. No. 87 (i.e. "any organisation of workers for furthering and defending the interests of workers") and that the guarantees embodied in the Convention are therefore fully applicable to them.
4. 343. The Committee has indicated on a number of occasions that, as one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their occupational interests,' the right to strike may be denied or seriously restricted only in public services or services essential in the strict sense of the term. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has stated in this connection that the concept of public servant should be confined to those acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority and that essential services should be interpreted as referring to those whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population and that, otherwise, if the legislation defines the public service or essential services too broadly, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in those sectors would become meaningless. Furthermore, the Committee on Freedom of Association has already had occasion to state its views on the education sector and has found that workers in that sector should not be considered as engaged in essential services in the strict sense of the term.
5. 344. In, these circumstances, the Committee considers that workers in the education sector ought to enjoy the right to strike since they cannot be considered as public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authorities nor as working in an essential service in the strict sense of the term. These authorities or services should benefit from compensatory guarantees if the right to strike is denied. Consequently the Committee keenly regrets the large number of teachers dismissed as a result of the strike action. It requests the Government to take steps to reinstate those teachers who are still dismissed (20 according to the complainant) and to take the necessary measures so as to recognise the right to strike of workers in the education sector.
6. 345. With regard to the other measures taken as a result of the strike and protest action organised by the teachers' organisations, the Committee considers that no objection can be made to the deductions from salary for days or, strike from the standpoint of the principles of freedom of association. However, it wishes to point out that placing schools under military control is not conducive to a climate of confidence and respect which should prevail in negotiation procedures, above all where negotiations are taking place in the context of an industrial dispute. Consequently, the authorities should not have recourse to this kind of measure.
7. 346. Finally, the Committee observes that the Government has not replied to the allegations contained in the communication from ' the complainant organisation dated 9 February 1983 regarding the search of the COLPROSUMAH premises by the police and the detention in custody of the leaders of the organisation for 24 hours in July 1982, and regarding the alleged acts of interference on the occasion of the COLPROSUMAH annual meeting. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations in this respect.

The Committee's recommendations

• The recommendation of the Committee
  347. 347 In the circumstances, the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve this interim report and, in particular, the following conclusions:
       • (a) The Committee recalls that workers in the education sector should benefit from the right to strike, since they cannot be considered to be public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority nor as workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term.
       • (b) The Committee keenly regrets the large number of teachers dismissed as a result of the strike action and requests the Government to take steps to reinstate those teachers who are still dismissed (20 according to the complainant.) and to take the necessary measures so as to recognise the right to strike of workers in the education sector.
       • (c) The Committee would draw the attention of the Government to the fact that placing schools under military control is not conducive to a climate of confidence and respect which should prevail in negotiation procedures, above all when negotiations are taking place in the context of an industrial dispute. Consequently, the authorities should not have recourse to this kind of measure.
       • (d) The Committee requests the Government to send its observations on the allegations contained in the communication from the complainant organisation dated 9 February 1983 regarding the searching of the COLPROSUMAH premises by the police and the detention in custody of the leaders of the organisation for 24 hours in July 1982, and regarding the alleged acts of interference on the occasion of the COLPROSUMAH annual meeting.