Interim Report - Report No 241, November 1985

Case No 1270 (Brazil) - Complaint date: 23-MAR-84 - Closed

1. 688. The Committee examined this case at its November 1984 meeting, when it submitted an interim report which was approved by the Governing Body (236th Report, paras. 603 to 622). The Government sent certain partial information on this case on 21 December 1984, and the complainants conveyed additional information in communications of 6 December 1984 (JAOA Monlevade Union) and 8 January 1985 (World Confederation of Labour). The Committee noted these developments in its 238th Report, paragraph 17, approved by the Governing Body in February 1985. Since then the Office has sent the Government of Brazil two cables dated 25 April and 26 August 1985 requesting it to reply to the allegations still pending.
2. 689. Brazil has not ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), but has ratified the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 690. The complaint originated in a labour dispute and strikes which developed in 1983-84 in Belgo Mineira, an iron and steel undertaking in the State of Minas Gerais, which led to dismissals of workers and trade union leaders, requisitioning of strikers and the recruitment of workers from outside the undertaking who were underpaid and forbidden to organise. The complaint referred in particular to the refusal of the management to renew the collective agreement and to an attempt by the management to negotiate with unorganised workers.
2. 691. The Government sent certain information from which it transpired that the regional labour delegation of the State of Minas Gerais and the Secretary for Labour Relations had acted as mediators in the dispute. The Government also stated, in general terms, that the right to organise is guaranteed by Brazilian law. On the other points mentioned above, however, the Government did not communicate concrete items of information in reply to the allegations of the complainants.
3. 692. At its November 1984 session the Governing Body therefore approved the following recommendations of the Committee:
   • a) With respect to the allegations concerning the dismissal of workers and trade union officials having taken part in a strike, the requisitioning of strikers, the threats of dismissal against strike pickets and the recruitment of workers at a lower wage accompanied by a ban to join a trade union in order to break a strike, the Committee drew the Government's attention to the dangers inherent in these alleged acts for freedom of association. The Committee also considered that these acts restricted the legitimate exercise of the right to strike. It requested the Government to inform it of measures taken or envisaged towards the reinstatement of the trade unionists who had allegedly been unjustly dismissed and to ensure that Brazilian legislation guaranteeing workers the basic right to join a trade union should be respected.
   • b) Concerning the alleged refusal of the management to renew the collective agreement which had expired in October 1983 and its attempts to negotiate with workers not belonging to a trade union, the Committee recalled the importance it attached to the promotion of collective bargaining with workers' representatives and requested the Government to inform it of the reasons for the employer's refusal to negotiate and also on the developments in this labour dispute.

B. The Government's reply

1. 693. In its communication of 21 December 1984 the Government stated that Brazilian law obliges the employer to negotiate with the appropriate trade union (section 616 of the Consolidation of Labour Laws) and that, despite seven meetings for conciliation purposes at the regional labour delegation of the State of Minas Gerais, no solution had been found enabling the parties to negotiate a new collective agreement; this resulted in the institution of legal proceedings in application of the labour legislation. The Government added that the proceedings were in progress before the labour court. As regards the allegations of dismissal of trade union officials, the Government stated that Brazilian law protects such officials against acts of anti-union discrimination and that, if individual complaints were made and it were shown that trade union officials had been dismissed without committing serious misdemeanours, the courts would order their reinstatement. The Government accordingly requested the Committee on Freedom of Association to declare the case closed.

C. Further developments

1. 694. In their communications of 6 December 1984 and 8 January 1985 the complainants claimed that the Government had remained passive in the face of the violations of freedom of association suffered by the workers of JAOA Monlevade since, when the union asked the Ministry of Labour for the inspection reports on the undertaking in July 1984, the Minister had allegedly replied that he did not intend to take any measures against Belgo Mineira and that, if the union wished to obtain copies of the inspection reports, it would have to take legal action. The complainants also took exception to the fact that the Minister had allegedly not imposed any penalty on the undertaking for persistent delays in the payment of wages, although appeals had been lodged in this connection and Brazilian law empowered him to penalise undertakings in such cases.
2. 695. The complainants also repeated their statement to the effect that even though, according to the Government, Brazilian law guarantees the right to organise in the powerful multinational undertaking Belgo Mineira, the management summons the workers individually to force them to sign a letter prepared in advance in which they undertake not to join any trade union on pain of dismissal.
3. 696. The complainants also indicated that, although the undertaking is under the obligation to check off trade union contributions from pay slips, it refuses to do so.
4. 697. The complainants also affirmed that a superintendent of the federal police of the State of Minas Gerais was dismissed from office by the Minister of Justice for having dared to impose sanctions on undertakings.
5. 698. Finally, the complainants claimed that black lists containing the names of workers who had stood up for their rights and had been dismissed were being circulated among employers. In particular, these lists bore the names of about 100 wage earners who had refused to yield to pressure by Belgo Mineira, had been dismissed and had been victimised when looking for new jobs.
6. 699. The complainants attached to their complaint a number of documents in support of their allegations, including a letter of complaint addressed to the regional labour delegate for Minas Gerais on 10 February 1984, in which the complainant union explained that the Belgo Mineira undertaking abolished the night shift unilaterally and without any consultation with the union, obliging workers to work two shifts and not three and so depriving them of the additional pay for night work which they had been receiving for years and which they regarded as an integral part of their wages.
7. 700. The documentation also contains two letters addressed to the Minister of Labour by the complainant union, the first on 11 January 1984 requesting copies of the labour inspection reports in the undertaking concerned, the second on 1 October 1984 reminding the Minister that, despite the interview he had granted the union on 11 July 1984, no measure had yet been taken to remedy the irregularities committed by the undertaking, in particular the pressure exerted on workers to induce them to leave the union and renounce the shift work supplement, which according to the union was a right acquired many years ago, and to force them to refrain from involving the union in the defence of their rights over the abolishment of their night work supplement and the consequent reduction in their paid leave and supplementary social benefits. The letter also mentioned the refusal by the employer, in violation of section 616 of the Consolidation of Labour Laws, to negotiate with the union the renewal of the collective agreement which was to enter into force on 1 October 1984. The letter explained that the undertaking delegated its bargaining powers to the employers' associations in the iron and steel industry for the negotiation in its name of an agreement for this branch of activity within a global bargaining framework including even small undertakings employing three workers, whereas, according to the complainant union, the undertaking had been negotiating directly with it for over 30 years. Still according to the trade union, the employer wished to provoke a conflict between the workers of small undertakings who were negotiating advantages for the first time and those of Belgo Mineira, who already enjoyed acquired rights and genuine advantages. It also wished to destroy the image of the trade union in the eyes of its members and to provoke clashes between workers. The letter ended by stating that, since the Minister of Labour was aware of the unlawful acts of the undertaking, the union hoped that he would take concrete steps to remedy the irregularities and again requested the Minister to supply copies of the inspection reports.
8. 701. The same complaints were transmitted by the complainant union to the President of the Republic in a letter dated 11 October 1984, copy of which was sent to the ILO by the World Confederation of Labour.

D. The Committee's conclusions

1. 702. In the present state of affairs the Committee deeply regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the latest allegations were presented by the complainants in December 1984 and the many requests for a reply to the allegations addressed to it by the ILO, no written information has been received from the Government respecting this labour dispute since December 1984.
2. 703. The Committee observes, however, that, according to the same written reply furnished by the Government in December 1984, no solution was found with a view to the renewal of the collective agreement in the Belgo Mineira undertaking and that judicial proceedings had been instituted before the labour courts in application of section 616 of the Consolidation of Labour Laws.
3. 704. The Committee notes that section 616, as amended by Act No. 4923 of 1965 and Legislative Decree No. 424 of 1969, provides that no industrial association representing economic or occupational categories and no undertaking, even if it is not represented by an industrial association, may refuse to engage in collective bargaining, that in the event of a refusal to negotiate the industrial associations and undertakings concerned must inform the regional office of the Ministry of Labour so that a summons may be served on the industrial association or undertaking refusing to bargain, and that, in the event of persistent refusal to negotiate by ignoring the summons served by the regional office of the Ministry of Labour or where the negotiations fail, the industrial association or undertaking concerned may commence a collective dispute. Finally, where a collective agreement, collective contract or binding award is in force, it is not permissible to commence a collective dispute more than 70 days before its expiry and any new text is to take effect from the date of such expiry.
4. 705. In the present case the Committee has been informed neither by the Government nor by the complainants of any settlement that may have been reached in this dispute since December 1984, despite the many conciliation meetings held at the regional labour delegation. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that Brazilian law imposes a time limit for the adoption of a decision to commence a collective dispute in the event of refusal by an employer to bargain. In the present case, according to the Government's own statements, judicial proceedings were instituted before December 1984 before the labour courts. The Committee trusts that this labour dispute has since been settled.
5. 706. The Committee therefore requests the Government to communicate any judicial decision handed down in respect of this labour dispute, and to supply detailed information on the manner in which it has developed.

The Committee's recommendations

1. 707. In these circumstances the Committee recommends the Governing Body to approve the present interim report, and in particular the following conclusions:
   • a) The Committee deeply regrets that, despite the time which has elapsed since the complainants' latest allegations in December 1984 and the many requests for a reply addressed to it by the ILO, no written information has been received from the Government since December 1984.
   • b) The Committee requests the Government to communicate the text of any judicial decision handed down in respect of the labour dispute between the JAOA Monlevade Metalworkers' Union and the iron and steel undertaking Belgo Mineira, and to supply detailed information on the way in which this dispute has developed.