Definitive Report - Report No 297, March 1995

Case No 1776 (Nicaragua) - Complaint date: 30-MAY-94 - Closed

Display in: French - Spanish

Go to:

75. The complaints in this case are contained in communications from the Sandinista Workers' Confederation (CST) and the Federation of Mining Trade Unions of Nicaragua (FESIMINI) dated 30 May and 17 June 1994, respectively. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 22 September 1994.
76. Nicaragua has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

77. In its communication dated 30 May 1994 the CST alleges that, by administrative decision of the Ministry of Labour, the main union leaders of FESIMINI and all the workers of the Nicaraguan Institute of Mines (INMINE) have been dismissed. The complainant organization alleges that the Government gave as grounds for the dismissals the enterprise's lack of liquid assets and that it ordered its closure, whereas in fact the decision was intended as a reprisal against the trade union leaders for criticizing the privatization of Nicaraguan mines. The complainant organization adds that, although the closure of the enterprise was said to be for reasons of force majeure, it had been reopened, new workers had been recruited and its headquarters had been relocated.
78. In a communication dated 17 June 1994, FESIMINI - which is affiliated to the CST - states that the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissed workers' constitutional rights and ordered the suspension of the dismissals allowed by the administrative authority. The Court based its decision on the fact that "the dismissals caused irreparable damage to the appellants and the lack of authority against which they are appealing is beyond question".

79. In its communication dated 22 September 1994, the Government states that the employer requested the administrative authority to cancel 93 contracts of employment by virtue of section 115, paragraph 3, of the Labour Code, which refers to the termination of a contract of employment on account of force majeure or an unforeseen event. The Government adds that the Labour Inspectorate found the request of the employer to be legitimate and authorized the cancellation of the contracts. The Government goes on to say that, although the Court of Appeals indicated the de facto and de jure grounds for upholding the constitutional rights of the dismissed workers and ordering the suspension of the administrative decision, it is apparent, from a review of the steps taken by the Ministry of Labour official who took the decision against which the appeal was lodged, that he proceeded in accordance with the law and with the information that was available to him at the time.
80. Finally, the Government states that, subsequent to the Court decision, the parties concerned (including FESIMINI, the complainant organization) reached a written agreement on 14 July 1994 (after the submission of the complaint) which put an end to the collective dispute by providing for compensation and other benefits for the workers (the Government attaches the text of the agreement signed inter alia by the secretary-general of FESIMINI, originator of the complaint lodged with the ILO).

81. The Committee observes that the complainants alleged that trade union leaders and workers of the Nicaraguan Institute of Mines (INMINE) were dismissed on false grounds of force majeure (closure of the institute for lack of liquid assets). The Committee also notes that the complainants themselves state that the dismissals concerned all the workers and not only the trade union leaders. However, the Committee considers that the circumstances in this case - the closure of the Institute and its reopening with new workers - could constitute an act of anti-union discrimination. In any event, the Committee notes with interest that, subsequent to the closure of the Institute, the parties concerned reached a written agreement that provides for the payment of compensation and other benefits to the workers.

82. In the light of the foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to decide that this case does not call for further examination.